Bad Form, Peter

[Glenn]

"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/

Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
<GlennS...@msn.com>:

>"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
>
>https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
>
>Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
>

Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate
the Negro population and the minister is the man who can
straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their
more rebellious members.” ~ Letter from Margaret Sanger to
Dr. C.J. Gamble, December 10th, 1939

This is usually denied vehemently, or ignored.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> >
> >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> >
> >Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
> >
> Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
>
> “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate
> the Negro population and the minister is the man who can
> straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their
> more rebellious members.” ~ Letter from Margaret Sanger to
> Dr. C.J. Gamble, December 10th, 1939
>
> This is usually denied vehemently, or ignored.
> >

understandably so, but is it science?
Certainly not the implication that "Physicians for Reproductive Health" are eugenicists.

"We know your reporting standards are to cover “both sides” of any debate. Allow us to be clear: Medicine and science are not up for debate. Health care is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. And the fact is, abortion is not in the realm of theory or belief. Abortion belongs in health care, social services, and public health reporting."

Again, the question, what is health care?

[jillery]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 20:57:02 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:


To quote someone Glenn holds in high regard:
"What relevance does this have to the subject of origins? How is this
on topic, and why was it not posted as off topic?"

>On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
><GlennS...@msn.com>:
>
>>"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
>>
>>https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
>>
>>Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
>>
>Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
>
>“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate
>the Negro population and the minister is the man who can
>straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their
>more rebellious members.” ~ Letter from Margaret Sanger to
>Dr. C.J. Gamble, December 10th, 1939
>
>This is usually denied vehemently, or ignored.

Both Bob and Glenn should ask themselves why evolutionnews ran an
opinion piece about abortion, a topic which has nothing to do with
evolution or ID.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Zen Cycle]

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:25 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> >
> >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/

More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.

> >
> >Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?

Yes; stupid question; anyone with any compassion; yes

> >
> Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:

Yes she was, but of course you rightwing idiots choose to paint her as a racist nazi sympathizer by misquoting, quoting out of context, deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, and outright lies. The quote below is a perfect case in point.

>
> “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate
> the Negro population and the minister is the man who can
> straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their
> more rebellious members.” ~ Letter from Margaret Sanger to
> Dr. C.J. Gamble, December 10th, 1939
>
> This is usually denied vehemently, or ignored.

It's usually denied or ignored because of your and other rightwing idiots clear intent to malign Sanger through implication. Yes Bob, you're implying that Sanger was a racist who supported genocide vis eugenics. It was a shitty tactic by D'Souza in The End Of Racism (which is no doubt where you read the quote and bought into the lie that it was a racist eugenic program, rather than researching it more and possibly preventing you from looking like a glen-style idiot here). This thread should be retitled "Bad Form, Bob".

Sanger had started a birth control outreach program targeting the black population in southern states because she :

"hoped to help "a group notoriously underprivileged and handicapped to a large measure by a ‘caste' system that operates as an added weight upon their efforts to get a fair share of the better things in life. To give them the means of helping themselves is perhaps the richest gift of all. We believe birth control knowledge brought to this group, is the most direct, constructive aid that can be given them to improve their immediate situation." Sanger viewed the Negro Project as another effort to help African-Americans gain better access to safe contraception and maintain birth control services in their community as she had attempted to do in Harlem a decade earlier when Sanger's Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (BCCRB), in cooperation with the New York Urban League, opened a birth control clinic there."
https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/bc_or_race_control/

So, yes, She didn't want word to go out that they were intending a eugenics program, because they weren't, and they knew certain entities (like the catholic church) and individuals (like you) were claiming a birth control outreach program was genocide.

Of course, we shouldn't forget the fact that this thread is about abortion, and Sanger was also quite clear regarding her opinion of abortion - She was against it except to save the life of the mother.:

“It is an alternative that I cannot too strongly condemn. Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.”
https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/ms_abortion/

Of course, this is usually denied vehemently or ignored by people like you with right wing agendas who wish to paint the Democratic as racists because reconstructionist southeastern states were dominated by democrats.




> >

[Glenn]

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:35:25 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 20:57:02 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> wrote:
>
>
> To quote someone Glenn holds in high regard:
> "What relevance does this have to the subject of origins? How is this
> on topic, and why was it not posted as off topic?"

So you can quote. Are you asking why the question of what is science, is on topic here?

> >On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> ><GlennS...@msn.com>:
> >
> >>"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> >>
> >>https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> >>
> >>Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
> >>
> >Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
> >
> >“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate
> >the Negro population and the minister is the man who can
> >straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their
> >more rebellious members.” ~ Letter from Margaret Sanger to
> >Dr. C.J. Gamble, December 10th, 1939
> >
> >This is usually denied vehemently, or ignored.
> Both Bob and Glenn should ask themselves why evolutionnews ran an
> opinion piece about abortion, a topic which has nothing to do with
> evolution or ID.
>

Because they knew it would attract you to ask why it was posted to talk.origins?

[Glenn]

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 6:50:25 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:25 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> > <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> > >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> > >
> > >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.

You and your driveling leftwing idiots peddle much more off topic issues and more often than I, or even Bob for that matter. But you don't seem to realize that you don't qualify your claims, specifically why the 'issue" is off topic, and why you make that an issue. Is the current talk about languages and dialects on topic for talk.origins? Are you participating in an off topic subject, and if so, does that participation indicate that you are a leftwing idiot?

> > >
> > >Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
> Yes; stupid question; anyone with any compassion; yes

Because...compassion. Got it. Of course that means you don't think I or "righwing idiots" are capable of or even understand what compassion is, and you assume that it is a sufficient self evident answer to the question. Most curious, indeed.

> > >
> > Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
> Yes she was, but of course you rightwing idiots choose to paint her as a racist nazi sympathizer by misquoting, quoting out of context, deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, and outright lies. The quote below is a perfect case in point.

So you are specifically including both Bob and I with such alleged rightwing idiots.
More curious claims, since you identify below Sanger's opinion on abortion, that corresponds to the current rightwing effort to minimize abortion, which you regard as being "compassionate".

> >
> > “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate
> > the Negro population and the minister is the man who can
> > straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their
> > more rebellious members.” ~ Letter from Margaret Sanger to
> > Dr. C.J. Gamble, December 10th, 1939
> >
> > This is usually denied vehemently, or ignored.
> It's usually denied or ignored because of your and other rightwing idiots clear intent to malign Sanger through implication. Yes Bob, you're implying that Sanger was a racist who supported genocide vis eugenics. It was a shitty tactic by D'Souza in The End Of Racism (which is no doubt where you read the quote and bought into the lie that it was a racist eugenic program, rather than researching it more and possibly preventing you from looking like a glen-style idiot here). This thread should be retitled "Bad Form, Bob".

I don't see Bob 'implying" any such thing. It appears Sanger did write that to Gamble. Whether or not Sanger was a "racist" is not the issue, many if not most sources identify her with being a eugenicist. Not all those sources are "rightwing idiots".

As to Gamble,
"The League supported programs of forced sterilization of both men and women, mostly poor, of assumed low IQ, and predominantly African-American, without their consent, with the goal of reducing the state's welfare burden and improving the gene pool."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Gamble#cite_ref-3

>
> Sanger had started a birth control outreach program targeting the black population in southern states because she :
>
> "hoped to help "a group notoriously underprivileged and handicapped to a large measure by a ‘caste' system that operates as an added weight upon their efforts to get a fair share of the better things in life. To give them the means of helping themselves is perhaps the richest gift of all. We believe birth control knowledge brought to this group, is the most direct, constructive aid that can be given them to improve their immediate situation." Sanger viewed the Negro Project as another effort to help African-Americans gain better access to safe contraception and maintain birth control services in their community as she had attempted to do in Harlem a decade earlier when Sanger's Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (BCCRB), in cooperation with the New York Urban League, opened a birth control clinic there."
> https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/bc_or_race_control/
>
> So, yes, She didn't want word to go out that they were intending a eugenics program, because they weren't, and they knew certain entities (like the catholic church) and individuals (like you) were claiming a birth control outreach program was genocide.

You think birth control can not be considered a form of eugenics. Interesting.
But again, I don't see where Bob claims that birth control or abortion is genocide.
The most curious thing is that you make no effort to provide evidence that such thinking existed. Seem you think your interpretation of the quote Bob posted is enough evidence to support that. Most curious indeed.

>
> Of course, we shouldn't forget the fact that this thread is about abortion, and Sanger was also quite clear regarding her opinion of abortion - She was against it except to save the life of the mother.:
>
> “It is an alternative that I cannot too strongly condemn. Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.”
> https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/ms_abortion/
>
> Of course, this is usually denied vehemently or ignored by people like you with right wing agendas who wish to paint the Democratic as racists because reconstructionist southeastern states were dominated by democrats.
>

Can you provide any documentation that support those claims? I think not. "usually' is kind of hard to document. You don't even identify what this "rightwing agenda" is about.
You assume that there are "usually" Republicans who regularly bring up the subject of Southern Democrats to support their position on abortion.

You sir appear to be a nutcase. Compassion? I doubt you understand the meaning of the word, let alone the capability to consider it's role in such a complicated issue, let alone in the subject of euthanasia.

More "rightwing idiots":

"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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 09:47:28 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:35:25 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 20:57:02 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> To quote someone Glenn holds in high regard:
>> "What relevance does this have to the subject of origins? How is this
>> on topic, and why was it not posted as off topic?"
>
>
>So you can quote. Are you asking why the question of what is science, is on topic here?

.
.
Your OP doesn't even mention science. And your cited article mentions
science only to baselessly assert a claim that science says abortion
destroys a human being. To the contrary, at what stage a collection
of human cells qualifies as a human being, and at what stage the
rights of that human being override the rights of the mother, are
political, moral, and religious decisions, not scientific ones.

So, since you asked, no. Not even sure why you ask that question.
You're welcome.
.
.

>> >On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
>> ><GlennS...@msn.com>:
>> >
>> >>"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
>> >>
>> >>https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
>> >>
>> >>Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
>> >>
>> >Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
>> >
>> >“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate
>> >the Negro population and the minister is the man who can
>> >straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their
>> >more rebellious members.” ~ Letter from Margaret Sanger to
>> >Dr. C.J. Gamble, December 10th, 1939
>> >
>> >This is usually denied vehemently, or ignored.
>> Both Bob and Glenn should ask themselves why evolutionnews ran an
>> opinion piece about abortion, a topic which has nothing to do with
>> evolution or ID.
>>
>Because they knew it would attract you to ask why it was posted to talk.origins?

.
.
Since evolutionnews doesn't post to T.O., that couldn't be their
motive. But you do, so it could be your motive. That, and your
specification of "peter" in the title, and your reply to Zen Cycle,
are good evidence that you know your OP is just off-topic
shit-stirring.

[Glenn]

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:25:25 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 09:47:28 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:35:25 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 20:57:02 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> To quote someone Glenn holds in high regard:
> >> "What relevance does this have to the subject of origins? How is this
> >> on topic, and why was it not posted as off topic?"
> >
> >
> >So you can quote. Are you asking why the question of what is science, is on topic here?
> .
> .
> Your OP doesn't even mention science. And your cited article mentions
> science only to baselessly assert a claim that science says abortion
> destroys a human being. To the contrary, at what stage a collection
> of human cells qualifies as a human being, and at what stage the
> rights of that human being override the rights of the mother, are
> political, moral, and religious decisions, not scientific ones.
>
> So, since you asked, no. Not even sure why you ask that question.
> You're welcome.

You just supported the intent of the article.

"Pro-Abortion MDs Want Media to Cancel Pro-Life Voices" say:

"Allow us to be clear: Medicine and science are not up for debate. Health care is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. And the fact is, abortion is not in the realm of theory or belief. Abortion belongs in health care, social services, and public health reporting."

I'm encouraged to see that you do not agree, so a thank you is appropriate.

> .
> .
> >> >On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> >> ><GlennS...@msn.com>:
> >> >
> >> >>"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> >> >>
> >> >>https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> >> >>
> >> >>Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
> >> >>
> >> >Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
> >> >
> >> >“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate
> >> >the Negro population and the minister is the man who can
> >> >straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their
> >> >more rebellious members.” ~ Letter from Margaret Sanger to
> >> >Dr. C.J. Gamble, December 10th, 1939
> >> >
> >> >This is usually denied vehemently, or ignored.
> >> Both Bob and Glenn should ask themselves why evolutionnews ran an
> >> opinion piece about abortion, a topic which has nothing to do with
> >> evolution or ID.
> >>
> >Because they knew it would attract you to ask why it was posted to talk.origins?
> .
> .
> Since evolutionnews doesn't post to T.O., that couldn't be their
> motive. But you do, so it could be your motive.

Yet it is possible that the authors read talk.origins, which is after all the equivalent of a media outlet. How can you discern their motive about why the article was posted on the Internet?

>That, and your
> specification of "peter" in the title, and your reply to Zen Cycle,
> are good evidence that you know your OP is just off-topic
> shit-stirring.
> --

Good evidence? It often pains me to see such pseudoscientific, even anti-scientific, thoughts prevail in a forum considered to be filled with advocates of science.

The title has nothing to do with the poster you constantly refer to as "the peter", but to a character in a movie. Specifically,

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/909605a8-a379-4a5f-9157-e21cc97bb497

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 11:53:35 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

<snip for focus>

>> >Because they knew it would attract you to ask why it was posted to talk.origins?
>> .
>> .
>> Since evolutionnews doesn't post to T.O., that couldn't be their
>> motive. But you do, so it could be your motive.

.

.
>Yet it is possible that the authors read talk.origins, which is after all the equivalent of a media outlet.

That evolutionnews' authors might read T.O. doesn't inform what they
publish.

>How can you discern their motive about why the article was posted on the Internet?

I didn't "discern" what their motive *is*. That's what *you* did.
Instead I said your suggested motive is mindless noise. Read for
comprehension.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 05:00:25 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> >
> >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> >
> >Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
> >
> Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
>
> “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate
> the Negro population and the minister is the man who can
> straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their
> more rebellious members.” ~ Letter from Margaret Sanger to
> Dr. C.J. Gamble, December 10th, 1939
>
> This is usually denied vehemently, or ignored.

I confidently expect that /you/ do not want word
to go out that you cut down trees, you skip and jump,
you like to press wild flowers, you put on women's
clothing, and hang around in bars.

And I'm fairly confident that in fact you don't do
most of those things.

But that isn't going to stop me from telling people
that you do.

A stupid person can be innocently confused.
But you also can be /ethically/ stupid. Do you
see what I mean?

[Glenn]

I'm not sure what you mean. What Bob said can be interpreted at least in two ways. He could have been baiting me. his "This" that he claims is usually denied, could be that Sanger did *not* wish to exterminate the Negro population. His "this" could mean that the minister was not one of the religious that considered negros to be less than human and worthy of extermination.

What do you mean, again?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:38:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:

>On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 05:00:25 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
>> <GlennS...@msn.com>:
>> >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
>> >
>> >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
>> >
>> >Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
>> >
>> Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
>>
>> “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate
>> the Negro population and the minister is the man who can
>> straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their
>> more rebellious members.” ~ Letter from Margaret Sanger to
>> Dr. C.J. Gamble, December 10th, 1939
>>
>> This is usually denied vehemently, or ignored.
>
>I confidently expect that /you/ do not want word
>to go out that you cut down trees, you skip and jump,
>you like to press wild flowers, you put on women's
>clothing, and hang around in bars.
>

Well, one (maybe two, depending) out of five would be
incorrect...

>
>And I'm fairly confident that in fact you don't do
>most of those things.
>

And you would be incorrect; depending on the meaning of your
"skip and jump" (both of which are involved in running some
obstacle courses) I don't do, and haven't done, either one
or two of them. I'm not a waterfowl hunter, so wearing
pantyhose for additional warmth, a common practice, was
never an issue.

>
>But that isn't going to stop me from telling people
>that you do.
>

Feel free; anyone who actually knows me would know you lied,
and the others are irrelevant. And anyone can say anything
they wish, barring incitement to riot or slander. And even
there, they can *say* it, but there may be consequences.

>
>A stupid person can be innocently confused.
>But you also can be /ethically/ stupid. Do you
>see what I mean?
>

Based on your initial statement, and in the context of a
verified quoted statement from a third party, now long
deceased, I'm not sure that even *you* know what you mean.
So are you innocent or unethical?

[Glenn]

I'm sure you knew what you meant by posting the quote, the quote and your comment that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. You're clearly not innocent of being dishonest, which can be equated with being ethically stupid. This just the last of a long line of bullshit from you, to what aim, I have no idea.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 15:27:17 -0700 (PDT), the following

Really? Wow, what a surprise; comments can be interpreted in
a variety of ways, usually based on the prejudices of the
reader. I had no idea...

>
> You're clearly not innocent of being dishonest, which can be equated with being ethically stupid. This just the last of a long line of bullshit from you, to what aim, I have no idea.
>

You have essentially no idea of anything. But be of good
cheer, you're far from alone in that, especially here.

[Glenn]

Of course you did. Perhaps my "that can be" was ill posed. But then you know that what someone says can be interpreted in different ways. Oh wait, you have a dictionary and grammar book in your right pocket.

> >
> > You're clearly not innocent of being dishonest, which can be equated with being ethically stupid. This just the last of a long line of bullshit from you, to what aim, I have no idea.
> >
> You have essentially no idea of anything. But be of good
> cheer, you're far from alone in that, especially here.
> >

Make sure to wipe the spit off your face before you leave.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 19:52:18 -0700 (PDT), the following

Apparently recognition of sarcasm, even if as blatant as
possible, isn't your strong suit.

>
>> > You're clearly not innocent of being dishonest, which can be equated with being ethically stupid. This just the last of a long line of bullshit from you, to what aim, I have no idea.
>> >
>> You have essentially no idea of anything. But be of good
>> cheer, you're far from alone in that, especially here.
>> >
>Make sure to wipe the spit off your face before you leave.
>

Whatever.

[Glenn]

If I didn't know you better I'd say you have to be joking.

[Zen Cycle]

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 2:15:26 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 6:50:25 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:25 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> > > <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> > > >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> > > >
> > > >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> > More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.
> You and your driveling leftwing idiots peddle much more off topic issues and more often than I

Hardly (and no, I'm not going to do an analysis of topics posted here for you. You made the claim "leftwing idiots peddle much more off topic issues and more often than I", you prove it.)

, or even Bob for that matter. But you don't seem to realize that you don't qualify your claims, specifically why the 'issue" is off topic, and why you make that an issue. Is the current talk about languages and dialects on topic for talk.origins? Are you participating in an off topic subject, and if so, does that participation indicate that you are a leftwing idiot?

If it isn't obvious to you why an op-ed piece regarding censorship in the abortion debate is off topic in talk.origins, it only goes to show (once again) that you have no business being here.

> > > >
> > > >Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
> > Yes; stupid question; anyone with any compassion; yes
> Because...compassion. Got it. Of course that means you don't think I or "righwing idiots" are capable of or even understand what compassion is, and you assume that it is a sufficient self evident answer to the question. Most curious, indeed.

Right wing idiots confuse compassion with narcissism. Check your bathroom mirror, sparky.

> > > >
> > > Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
> > Yes she was, but of course you rightwing idiots choose to paint her as a racist nazi sympathizer by misquoting, quoting out of context, deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, and outright lies. The quote below is a perfect case in point.
> So you are specifically including both Bob and I with such alleged rightwing idiots.
> More curious claims, since you identify below Sanger's opinion on abortion, that corresponds to the current rightwing effort to minimize abortion, which you regard as being "compassionate".
> > >
> > > “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate
> > > the Negro population and the minister is the man who can
> > > straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their
> > > more rebellious members.” ~ Letter from Margaret Sanger to
> > > Dr. C.J. Gamble, December 10th, 1939
> > >
> > > This is usually denied vehemently, or ignored.
> > It's usually denied or ignored because of your and other rightwing idiots clear intent to malign Sanger through implication. Yes Bob, you're implying that Sanger was a racist who supported genocide vis eugenics. It was a shitty tactic by D'Souza in The End Of Racism (which is no doubt where you read the quote and bought into the lie that it was a racist eugenic program, rather than researching it more and possibly preventing you from looking like a glen-style idiot here). This thread should be retitled "Bad Form, Bob".
> I don't see Bob 'implying" any such thing.

That's because you're ignorant of the issue.

> It appears Sanger did write that to Gamble.

She did, no one is denying that.

> Whether or not Sanger was a "racist" is not the issue

It's an accusation supported by the right wing idiots trotting out that quote. Try to keep up, sparky.

> many if not most sources identify her with being a eugenicist. Not all those sources are "rightwing idiots".

Again, if you had any understanding of the issue, you'd know that she promoted an early version of eugenics - strictly voluntary.

>
> As to Gamble,

You can go on about Gamble all you want. I'm not interested

<snipped irrelevant topic drift to an already off-topic thread>

> >
> > Sanger had started a birth control outreach program targeting the black population in southern states because she :
> >
> > "hoped to help "a group notoriously underprivileged and handicapped to a large measure by a ‘caste' system that operates as an added weight upon their efforts to get a fair share of the better things in life. To give them the means of helping themselves is perhaps the richest gift of all. We believe birth control knowledge brought to this group, is the most direct, constructive aid that can be given them to improve their immediate situation." Sanger viewed the Negro Project as another effort to help African-Americans gain better access to safe contraception and maintain birth control services in their community as she had attempted to do in Harlem a decade earlier when Sanger's Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (BCCRB), in cooperation with the New York Urban League, opened a birth control clinic there."
> > https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/bc_or_race_control/
> >
> > So, yes, She didn't want word to go out that they were intending a eugenics program, because they weren't, and they knew certain entities (like the catholic church) and individuals (like you) were claiming a birth control outreach program was genocide.
> You think birth control can not be considered a form of eugenics. Interesting.

There's that sharp-as-a-grape wit of the glen again...no, I didn't say or imply that, you silly troll.

> But again, I don't see where Bob claims that birth control or abortion is genocide.
> The most curious thing is that you make no effort to provide evidence that such thinking existed. Seem you think your interpretation of the quote Bob posted is enough evidence to support that. Most curious indeed.

Again, if you had any awareness of the issue, you'd know that a common anti-abortion trope is to claim abortion is a form of genocide. No one is making that claim about birth control. I realize it's hard to stay focused when you are ignorant of the subject at hand, I'm trying to help you here, sparky.

> > Of course, we shouldn't forget the fact that this thread is about abortion, and Sanger was also quite clear regarding her opinion of abortion - She was against it except to save the life of the mother.:
> >
> > “It is an alternative that I cannot too strongly condemn. Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.”
> > https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/ms_abortion/
> >
> > Of course, this is usually denied vehemently or ignored by people like you with right wing agendas who wish to paint the Democratic as racists because reconstructionist southeastern states were dominated by democrats.
> >
> Can you provide any documentation that support those claims? I think not.

Again, a common trope of right wing idiots trotting out that fact that the democrat party was the party of Jim Crow from the end of the civil war up until the passage of the civil rights act. It's common knowledge. I guess this level of ignorance you're displaying is a result of your mother doing your homework.

>"usually' is kind of hard to document. You don't even identify what this "rightwing agenda" is about.

Ask any magatard.

> You assume that there are "usually" Republicans who regularly bring up the subject of Southern Democrats to support their position on abortion.

Nothing I've ever posted assumes, states, or implies that. This is simply once again, your attempt to troll.

>
> You sir appear to be a nutcase. Compassion? I doubt you understand the meaning of the word,

Said the troll promoting anti-abortion.

> let alone the capability to consider it's role in such a complicated issue,

You're one of the last people whose opinion on social issues I would ever give any consideration.

> let alone in the subject of euthanasia.

Another off-topic distraction duly noted, and subsequently ignored.

> More "rightwing idiots":
>
> "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."
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics

Completely true. Good for you sparky, you actually researched something on your own without parroting one of your inane rightwing idiot sources.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 23:13:54 -0700 (PDT), the following

You don't know me at all; don't imagine you do. So, you
really *didn't* know my comment was sarcasm? Do you only
recognize sarcasm if you originate it? Either way, this has
become (more) unproductive, so bye again (this does seem to
happen repeatedly, doesn't it?)

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:25 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> > <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> > >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> > >
> > >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.
> > >
> > >Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?

> Yes; stupid question; anyone with any compassion; yes
> > >
> > Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
> Yes she was, but of course you rightwing idiots choose to paint her as a racist nazi sympathizer by misquoting, quoting out of context, deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, and outright lies.

Are you sure you want to label Planned Parenthood as an organization of rightwing idiots?
Here are excerpts from an official statement from PP that may greatly surprise you.

#Sanger also believed in eugenics — an inherently racist and ableist ideology that labeled
#certain people unfit to have children. Eugenics is the theory that society can be improved
#through planned breeding for “desirable traits” like intelligence and industriousness."

#Margaret Sanger was so intent on her mission to advocate for birth control that she chose
#to align herself with ideologies and organizations that were explicitly ableist and white
#supremacist. In doing so, she undermined reproductive freedom and caused irreparable
#damage to the health and lives of generations of Black people, Latino people, Indigenous
#people, immigrants, people with disabilities, people with low incomes, and many others.
...
#Planned Parenthood denounces Margaret Sanger’s belief in eugenics. Planned Parenthood
#believes that all people — of every race, religion, gender identity, ability, immigration status,
#and geography — are full human beings with the right to determine their own future and
#decide, without coercion or judgment, whether and when to have children.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/cc/2e/cc2e84f2-126f-41a5-a24b-43e093c47b2c/210414-sanger-opposition-claims-p01.pdf

> The quote below is a perfect case in point.
> >
> > “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate
> > the Negro population and the minister is the man who can
> > straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their
> > more rebellious members.” ~ Letter from Margaret Sanger to
> > Dr. C.J. Gamble, December 10th, 1939
> >
> > This is usually denied vehemently, or ignored.
> It's usually denied or ignored because of your and other rightwing idiots clear intent to malign Sanger through implication. Yes Bob, you're implying that Sanger was a racist who supported genocide vis eugenics.

While it wasn't all-out genocide, it might be regarded as that where some
Native American tribes were affected:

[from the above pdf:]
QUOTE:
In the 1970s and 80s, Indigenous women were sterilized
at staggering rates, without their consent: At least
25% of Native American women were sterilized
between 1970 and 1976. The ripples of the Buck
v. Bell decision are still felt today. In 2020 at Irwin
County Detention Center in Georgia, immigrant
detainees were sterilized against their will.
END OF QUOTE

The following excerpt, a little earlier in the pdf, tells about Buck v. Bell:

For example, [Sanger] endorsed the 1927 Buck v. Bell
decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that
states could forcibly sterilize people deemed “unfit”
without their consent and sometimes without their
knowledge. The acceptance of this decision by
Sanger and other thought leaders laid the foundation
for tens of thousands of people to be sterilized, often
against their will. (Chesler, 1992, 485)
END OF EXCERPT

>It was a shitty tactic by D'Souza in The End Of Racism (which is no doubt where you read the quote and bought into the lie that it was a racist eugenic program, rather than researching it more and possibly preventing you from looking like a glen-style idiot here). This thread should be retitled "Bad Form, Bob".

Not as bad as you might think; see above and a tidbit below.

>
> Sanger had started a birth control outreach program targeting the black population in southern states because she :
>
> "hoped to help "a group notoriously underprivileged and handicapped to a large measure by a ‘caste' system that operates as an added weight upon their efforts to get a fair share of the better things in life. To give them the means of helping themselves is perhaps the richest gift of all. We believe birth control knowledge brought to this group, is the most direct, constructive aid that can be given them to improve their immediate situation." Sanger viewed the Negro Project as another effort to help African-Americans gain better access to safe contraception and maintain birth control services in their community as she had attempted to do in Harlem a decade earlier when Sanger's Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (BCCRB), in cooperation with the New York Urban League, opened a birth control clinic there."
> https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/bc_or_race_control/

No mention of Sanger's support for Buck v. Bell. I wonder how many Black women
deemed to be of low intelligence were sterilized without their knowledge.
Also, the link you provide makes no mention of Sanger catering to white supremacists.
The pdf I linked doesn't whitewash this the way the article does. Take a gander at this:

"Margaret Sanger made a speech on birth control to a women’s auxiliary branch
of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey, in 1926 (Sanger, 1938, 366)."

>
> So, yes, She didn't want word to go out that they were intending a eugenics program, because they weren't, and they knew certain entities (like the catholic church) and individuals (like you) were claiming a birth control outreach program was genocide.
>
> Of course, we shouldn't forget the fact that this thread is about abortion, and Sanger was also quite clear regarding her opinion of abortion - She was against it except to save the life of the mother.:
>
> “It is an alternative that I cannot too strongly condemn. Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.”
> https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/ms_abortion/
>
> Of course, this is usually denied vehemently or ignored by people like you with right wing agendas
> who wish to paint the Democratic as racists because reconstructionist southeastern states were dominated by democrats.

You ducked Glenn's challenge to support the "people like you" claim with actual
examples, which would have given Glenn a chance to distance himself from
such people, just as Planned Parenthood has distanced itself from Margaret Sanger.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 2:50:30 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:25 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> > > <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> > > >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> > > >
> > > >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> > More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.
> > > >
> > > >Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
>
> > Yes; stupid question; anyone with any compassion; yes
> > > >
> > > Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
> > Yes she was, but of course you rightwing idiots choose to paint her as a racist nazi sympathizer by misquoting, quoting out of context, deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, and outright lies.
> Are you sure you want to label Planned Parenthood as an organization of rightwing idiots?

He's a mad dog. Expect anything. Shades of Ron's 'projection". Very scary, he might represent over half the population of the country.

[jillery]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 14:49:46 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:25 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
>> > <GlennS...@msn.com>:
>> > >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
>> > >
>> > >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
>> More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.
>> > >
>> > >Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
>
>> Yes; stupid question; anyone with any compassion; yes
>> > >
>> > Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
>> Yes she was, but of course you rightwing idiots choose to paint her as a racist nazi sympathizer by misquoting, quoting out of context, deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, and outright lies.
>
>Are you sure you want to label Planned Parenthood as an organization of rightwing idiots?

Read for comprehension. Zen Cycle said nothing of the kind.
Are you sure you didn't catch that problem from Glenn? I didn't think
willful stupidity was contagious, but current events suggest
otherwise. Perhaps you should have yourself tested.

>Here are excerpts from an official statement from PP that may greatly surprise you.
>
>#Sanger also believed in eugenics — an inherently racist and ableist ideology that labeled
>#certain people unfit to have children. Eugenics is the theory that society can be improved
>#through planned breeding for “desirable traits” like intelligence and industriousness."
>
>#Margaret Sanger was so intent on her mission to advocate for birth control that she chose
>#to align herself with ideologies and organizations that were explicitly ableist and white
>#supremacist. In doing so, she undermined reproductive freedom and caused irreparable
>#damage to the health and lives of generations of Black people, Latino people, Indigenous
>#people, immigrants, people with disabilities, people with low incomes, and many others.
>...
>#Planned Parenthood denounces Margaret Sanger’s belief in eugenics. Planned Parenthood
>#believes that all people — of every race, religion, gender identity, ability, immigration status,
>#and geography — are full human beings with the right to determine their own future and
>#decide, without coercion or judgment, whether and when to have children.
>
>https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/cc/2e/cc2e84f2-126f-41a5-a24b-43e093c47b2c/210414-sanger-opposition-claims-p01.pdf

Just as Charles Darwin's writings don't describe current ToE, so too
Margaret Sanger's writings don't describe current Planned Parenthood
policies. Quotemining historical writings is a basis for many PRATTs
used by pseudoskeptics.

[Zen Cycle]

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 5:50:30 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:25 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> > > <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> > > >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> > > >
> > > >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> > More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.
> > > >
> > > >Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
>
> > Yes; stupid question; anyone with any compassion; yes
> > > >
> > > Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
> > Yes she was, but of course you rightwing idiots choose to paint her as a racist nazi sympathizer by misquoting, quoting out of context, deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, and outright lies.
> Are you sure you want to label Planned Parenthood as an organization of rightwing idiots?

Where exactly did I do that?

> Here are excerpts from an official statement from PP that may greatly surprise you.
>
> #Sanger also believed in eugenics — an inherently racist and ableist ideology that labeled
> #certain people unfit to have children. Eugenics is the theory that society can be improved
> #through planned breeding for “desirable traits” like intelligence and industriousness."
>
> #Margaret Sanger was so intent on her mission to advocate for birth control that she chose
> #to align herself with ideologies and organizations that were explicitly ableist and white
> #supremacist. In doing so, she undermined reproductive freedom and caused irreparable
> #damage to the health and lives of generations of Black people, Latino people, Indigenous
> #people, immigrants, people with disabilities, people with low incomes, and many others.
> ...
> #Planned Parenthood denounces Margaret Sanger’s belief in eugenics. Planned Parenthood
> #believes that all people — of every race, religion, gender identity, ability, immigration status,
> #and geography — are full human beings with the right to determine their own future and
> #decide, without coercion or judgment, whether and when to have children.
>
> https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/cc/2e/cc2e84f2-126f-41a5-a24b-43e093c47b2c/210414-sanger-opposition-claims-p01.pdf

uh...no.
That PP claims eugenics is "inherently rascist" is the modern definition of eugenics, not the form Sanger was a proponent of. Planned Parenthood does _not_ label Sanger as a racist nazi sympathizer s you imply. If you had bothered to read the links I posted upthread you would see where she was adamantly against any forced birth control, especially racially based. It's very clear in her own writings. It's a regrettable kneejerk position by PP, but necessary in the face of ignorant rubes who buy into the right-wing spew (as you have done).
Besides that, the document you linked seems to be the most recent rework of one that has existed since 2004

2004: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/8013/9611/6937/Opposition_Claims_About_Margaret_Sanger.pdf
2016: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2018/18-483/18-483-2.pdf (I have no idea why this is on the SCOTUS website)

Both older papers have the following which was removed from the 2021 edition

"she consistently and firmly
repudiated any strictly racial application of eugenics
principles. For example, Sanger vocally opposed
the racial stereotyping that effected passage of
the Immigration Act of 1924, on the grounds that
intelligence and other inherited traits vary by
individual and not by group (Chesler, 1992, 2007)."

And of course your intellectually dishonesty runs amok again, since the paper you link very specifically states "there is no evidence that Sanger, or the Federation, intended to coerce Black women into using birth control:"

Sure, through buck V bell. But again, if you hadn't been cherry picking (your favorite form of intellectual dishonesty) You would also know her agreement was specifically aligned with those deemed unfit to make decisions for themselves, not based on race.

> >It was a shitty tactic by D'Souza in The End Of Racism (which is no doubt where you read the quote and bought into the lie that it was a racist eugenic program, rather than researching it more and possibly preventing you from looking like a glen-style idiot here). This thread should be retitled "Bad Form, Bob".
> Not as bad as you might think; see above and a tidbit below.
> >
> > Sanger had started a birth control outreach program targeting the black population in southern states because she :
> >
> > "hoped to help "a group notoriously underprivileged and handicapped to a large measure by a ‘caste' system that operates as an added weight upon their efforts to get a fair share of the better things in life. To give them the means of helping themselves is perhaps the richest gift of all. We believe birth control knowledge brought to this group, is the most direct, constructive aid that can be given them to improve their immediate situation." Sanger viewed the Negro Project as another effort to help African-Americans gain better access to safe contraception and maintain birth control services in their community as she had attempted to do in Harlem a decade earlier when Sanger's Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (BCCRB), in cooperation with the New York Urban League, opened a birth control clinic there."
> > https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/bc_or_race_control/
> No mention of Sanger's support for Buck v. Bell. I wonder how many Black women
> deemed to be of low intelligence were sterilized without their knowledge.
> Also, the link you provide makes no mention of Sanger catering to white supremacists.

_that_ link....Did you bother to check out any of these?
https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/

> The pdf I linked doesn't whitewash this the way the article does. Take a gander at this:
>
> "Margaret Sanger made a speech on birth control to a women’s auxiliary branch
> of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey, in 1926 (Sanger, 1938, 366)."

Oooo, a gander!

Gander this, asshat - the part you snipped from your link

"Sanger was so intent on her
mission to advocate for birth control that she chose

to align herself with ideologies and organizations

that were explicitly ableist and white supremacist.

In doing so, she undermined reproductive freedom

Black people, Latino people, Indigenous people,

immigrants, people with disabilities, people with low
incomes, and many others.

However, there is no evidence to support the claim
that Sanger supported “black genocide.” "

> >
> > So, yes, She didn't want word to go out that they were intending a eugenics program, because they weren't, and they knew certain entities (like the catholic church) and individuals (like you) were claiming a birth control outreach program was genocide.
> >
> > Of course, we shouldn't forget the fact that this thread is about abortion, and Sanger was also quite clear regarding her opinion of abortion - She was against it except to save the life of the mother.:
> >
> > “It is an alternative that I cannot too strongly condemn. Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.”
> > https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/ms_abortion/
> >
> > Of course, this is usually denied vehemently or ignored by people like you with right wing agendas
> > who wish to paint the Democratic as racists because reconstructionist southeastern states were dominated by democrats.
> You ducked Glenn's challenge to support the "people like you" claim with actual
> examples, which would have given Glenn a chance to distance himself from
> such people,

yup, I ducked a swing-and-a-miss on his part.

> just as Planned Parenthood has distanced itself from Margaret Sanger.

Glen wouldn't have been able to distance himself from the Dinesh D'Souzas of the world, he's lock step. Besides that, Planned Parenthhood distanced itself from Snagers promotion of eugenics, and the paper you linked goes to great lengths to defend her positions on abortion and race, with the last three pages under the heading "Published Statements that Distort or Misquote Margaret Sanger".

[Zen Cycle]

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 6:35:30 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 2:50:30 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:25 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> > > > <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> > > > >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> > > > >
> > > > >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> > > More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.
> > > > >
> > > > >Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
> >
> > > Yes; stupid question; anyone with any compassion; yes
> > > > >
> > > > Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
> > > Yes she was, but of course you rightwing idiots choose to paint her as a racist nazi sympathizer by misquoting, quoting out of context, deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, and outright lies.
> > Are you sure you want to label Planned Parenthood as an organization of rightwing idiots?
> He's a mad dog. Expect anything. Shades of Ron's 'projection". Very scary, he might represent over half the population of the country.

More biased and uniformed drivel from a rightwing idiot.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 9:20:31 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 5:50:30 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:25 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> > > > <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> > > > >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> > > > >
> > > > >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> > > More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.
> > > > >
> > > > >Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
> >
> > > Yes; stupid question; anyone with any compassion; yes
> > > > >
> > > > Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
> > > Yes she was, but of course you rightwing idiots choose to paint her as a racist nazi sympathizer by misquoting, quoting out of context, deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, and outright lies.

> > Are you sure you want to label Planned Parenthood as an organization of rightwing idiots?

> Where exactly did I do that?

If you replace "nazi" with "white supremacist," does that mean that it is NOT right wing and/or idiotic to
paint Sanger as one?

That difference partly accounts for my asking a question rather than making an accusation.
But then, past experience with you suggests that the difference between asking and accusing is negligible
in The World According to Zencyle.

> > Here are excerpts from an official statement from PP that may greatly surprise you.
> >
> > #Sanger also believed in eugenics — an inherently racist and ableist ideology that labeled
> > #certain people unfit to have children. Eugenics is the theory that society can be improved
> > #through planned breeding for “desirable traits” like intelligence and industriousness."
> >
> > #Margaret Sanger was so intent on her mission to advocate for birth control that she chose
> > #to align herself with ideologies and organizations that were explicitly ableist and white
> > #supremacist. In doing so, she undermined reproductive freedom and caused irreparable
> > #damage to the health and lives of generations of Black people, Latino people, Indigenous
> > #people, immigrants, people with disabilities, people with low incomes, and many others.
> > ...
> > #Planned Parenthood denounces Margaret Sanger’s belief in eugenics. Planned Parenthood
> > #believes that all people — of every race, religion, gender identity, ability, immigration status,
> > #and geography — are full human beings with the right to determine their own future and
> > #decide, without coercion or judgment, whether and when to have children.
> >
> > https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/cc/2e/cc2e84f2-126f-41a5-a24b-43e093c47b2c/210414-sanger-opposition-claims-p01.pdf
> uh...no.

> That PP claims eugenics is "inherently rascist" is the modern definition of eugenics, not the form Sanger was a proponent of.

What part of "Planned Parenthood denounces Margaret Sanger’s belief in eugenics" didn't
you understand?

> Planned Parenthood does _not_ label Sanger as a racist nazi sympathizer s you imply.

"s you imply" is polemical nonsense. "rightwing idiots" has a lot of latitude for modifying
the precise wording. I suggested one change above, again asking a question. Feel free
to modify "racist" to a form that you feel comfortable defending what Planned Parenthood wrote.

> If you had bothered to read the links I posted upthread you would see where she was adamantly against any forced birth control, especially racially based.

If you had bothered to read what I quoted below, you know that you are blowing smoke:

[repeated from below]

> > For example, [Sanger] endorsed the 1927 Buck v. Bell
> > decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that
> > states could forcibly sterilize people deemed “unfit”
> > without their consent and sometimes without their
> > knowledge. The acceptance of this decision by
> > Sanger and other thought leaders laid the foundation
> > for tens of thousands of people to be sterilized, often
> > against their will. (Chesler, 1992, 485)

[end of repost]

> It's very clear in her own writings. It's a regrettable kneejerk position by PP, but necessary in the face of ignorant rubes who buy into the right-wing spew (as you have done).

Correction: as the quotes (like the one above) have done by your standards. With more to come below.
All endorsed by PP.

You have defamed me by conflating my opinion with that of PP. I haven't read enough on my
own to support the things PP says about Sanger, and only setting the record straight
as to what PP has publicly stated.

> Besides that, the document you linked seems to be the most recent rework of one that has existed since 2004
>
> 2004: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/8013/9611/6937/Opposition_Claims_About_Margaret_Sanger.pdf
> 2016: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2018/18-483/18-483-2.pdf (I have no idea why this is on the SCOTUS website)
>
> Both older papers have the following which was removed from the 2021 edition

I wonder why it was removed. Do you suppose the fact that the last Margaret Sanger award was
handed out in 2015 is closely related to the removal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger_Awards

Interesting: Wikipedia gives no clue as to why the awarding stopped.
But then, even Slate, an organization no one would dream of calling "right wing",
and is generally "progressive," wrote:

"(A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood did not respond to a question about why the organization stopped issuing the award.)"
https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/07/planned-parenthood-margaret-sanger-history.html

>
> "she consistently and firmly
> repudiated any strictly racial application of eugenics
> principles. For example, Sanger vocally opposed
> the racial stereotyping that effected passage of
> the Immigration Act of 1924, on the grounds that
> intelligence and other inherited traits vary by
> individual and not by group (Chesler, 1992, 2007)."

My guess as to why they removed the above: they decided that leaving this in would cause too much confusion,
given that they decided to put in the following:

[repeated from above:]

> > #Sanger also believed in eugenics — an inherently racist and ableist ideology that labeled
> > #certain people unfit to have children.


>

> And of course your intellectually dishonesty runs amok again,

"again" is a third defamation on top of the the one above and the part before "again".

> since the paper you link very specifically states "there is no evidence that Sanger, or the Federation, intended to coerce Black women into using birth control:"

...except for those deemed "mentally defective" or otherwise "unfit to have children."
Black women are no less likely to fit the description than white women or Hispanic women or...

> > > The quote below is a perfect case in point.
> > > >
> > > > “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate
> > > > the Negro population and the minister is the man who can
> > > > straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their
> > > > more rebellious members.” ~ Letter from Margaret Sanger to
> > > > Dr. C.J. Gamble, December 10th, 1939
> > > >
> > > > This is usually denied vehemently, or ignored.
> > > It's usually denied or ignored because of your and other rightwing idiots clear intent to malign Sanger through implication. Yes Bob, you're implying that Sanger was a racist who supported genocide vis eugenics.

"genocide" accuses Bob of reading that intent into what he quoted.
Not pretending to be able to read Bob's mind, I leave it up to him to tell
you whether you've done it successfully.


Continued in next reply, with part of the above added for context.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 9:20:31 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 5:50:30 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:25 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:

Repeating a bit from the first reply, for context:

> > > The quote below is a perfect case in point.
> > > >
> > > > “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate
> > > > the Negro population and the minister is the man who can
> > > > straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their
> > > > more rebellious members.” ~ Letter from Margaret Sanger to
> > > > Dr. C.J. Gamble, December 10th, 1939
> > > >
> > > > This is usually denied vehemently, or ignored.
> > > It's usually denied or ignored because of your and other rightwing idiots clear intent to malign Sanger through implication. Yes Bob, you're implying that Sanger was a racist who supported genocide vis eugenics.

[end of context, now for the continuation]

> > While it wasn't all-out genocide, it might be regarded as that where some
> > Native American tribes were affected:
> >

> > QUOTE:
> > In the 1970s and 80s, Indigenous women were sterilized
> > at staggering rates, without their consent: At least
> > 25% of Native American women were sterilized
> > between 1970 and 1976. The ripples of the Buck
> > v. Bell decision are still felt today. In 2020 at Irwin
> > County Detention Center in Georgia, immigrant
> > detainees were sterilized against their will.
> > END OF QUOTE

--https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/cc/2e/cc2e84f2-126f-41a5-a24b-43e093c47b2c/210414-sanger-opposition-claims-p01.pdf

That 25% probably wasn't uniformly distributed among all the tribes,
so some smaller ones might have had considerably higher percentages.

> > The following excerpt, a little earlier in the pdf, tells about Buck v. Bell:
> >
> > For example, [Sanger] endorsed the 1927 Buck v. Bell
> > decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that
> > states could forcibly sterilize people deemed “unfit”
> > without their consent and sometimes without their
> > knowledge. The acceptance of this decision by
> > Sanger and other thought leaders laid the foundation
> > for tens of thousands of people to be sterilized, often
> > against their will. (Chesler, 1992, 485)
> > END OF EXCERPT


> Sure, through buck V bell. But again, if you hadn't been cherry picking (your favorite form of intellectual dishonesty)

More defamation by you. See what I wrote above:
[repeated from above]

...except for those deemed "mentally defective" or otherwise "unfit to have children."
Black women are no less likely to fit the description than white women or Hispanic women or...

[end of excerpt]

> You would also know her agreement was specifically aligned with those deemed unfit to make decisions for themselves, not based on race.

Where did you get "to make decisions for themselves" from?


By the way, if you think *I* cherry pick, you ought to see something Erik Simpson did today in sci.bio.paleontology today:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/26BZZ4NIrHw/m/0lD7vn4FAAAJ
Re: Yet another evolutionary tree.

Of course, you wouldn't dream of accusing Erik of intellectual dishonesty.

> > >It was a shitty tactic by D'Souza in The End Of Racism (which is no doubt where you read the quote and bought into the lie that it was a racist eugenic program, rather than researching it more and possibly preventing you from looking like a glen-style idiot here). This thread should be retitled "Bad Form, Bob".
> > Not as bad as you might think; see above and a tidbit below.
> > >
> > > Sanger had started a birth control outreach program targeting the black population in southern states because she :
> > >
> > > "hoped to help "a group notoriously underprivileged and handicapped to a large measure by a ‘caste' system that operates as an added weight upon their efforts to get a fair share of the better things in life. To give them the means of helping themselves is perhaps the richest gift of all. We believe birth control knowledge brought to this group, is the most direct, constructive aid that can be given them to improve their immediate situation." Sanger viewed the Negro Project as another effort to help African-Americans gain better access to safe contraception and maintain birth control services in their community as she had attempted to do in Harlem a decade earlier when Sanger's Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (BCCRB), in cooperation with the New York Urban League, opened a birth control clinic there."
> > > https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/bc_or_race_control/

> > No mention of Sanger's support for Buck v. Bell. I wonder how many Black women
> > deemed to be of low intelligence were sterilized without their knowledge.
> > Also, the link you provide makes no mention of Sanger catering to white supremacists.
> _that_ link....Did you bother to check out any of these?
> https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/

Why, does any of them give statistics that would answer the question I implicitly
asked with "I wonder how many Black women..."?

> > The pdf I linked doesn't whitewash this the way the article does. Take a gander at this:
> >
> > "Margaret Sanger made a speech on birth control to a women’s auxiliary branch
> > of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey, in 1926 (Sanger, 1938, 366)."
> Oooo, a gander!
>
> Gander this, asshat - the part you snipped from your link

...is not something I ever denied. So much for your vulgar taunt.

> "Sanger was so intent on her
> mission to advocate for birth control that she chose
> to align herself with ideologies and organizations
> that were explicitly ableist and white supremacist.

<snip to the part I had omitted:>

> However, there is no evidence to support the claim
> that Sanger supported “black genocide.” "

Agreed.


TO BE CONCLUDED tomorrow.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 1:50:31 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 14:49:46 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:25 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> >> > <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> >> > >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> >> > >
> >> > >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> >> More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.
> >> > >
> >> > >Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
> >
> >> Yes; stupid question; anyone with any compassion; yes
> >> > >
> >> > Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
> >> Yes she was, but of course you rightwing idiots choose to paint her as a racist nazi sympathizer by misquoting, quoting out of context, deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, and outright lies.
> >
> >Are you sure you want to label Planned Parenthood as an organization of rightwing idiots?

> Read for comprehension. Zen Cycle said nothing of the kind.

Hence I asked rather than accused. And I explained ramifications to him that will
probably go over your head, and *a fortiori* Zencycle's, near the beginning
of the following post:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/Fr0bzzNzAgAJ

Now comes the GO part of your GIGO:

> Are you sure you didn't catch that problem from Glenn? I didn't think
> willful stupidity was contagious, but current events suggest
> otherwise. Perhaps you should have yourself tested.



> >Here are excerpts from an official statement from PP that may greatly surprise you.
> >
> >#Sanger also believed in eugenics — an inherently racist and ableist ideology that labeled
> >#certain people unfit to have children. Eugenics is the theory that society can be improved
> >#through planned breeding for “desirable traits” like intelligence and industriousness."
> >
> >#Margaret Sanger was so intent on her mission to advocate for birth control that she chose
> >#to align herself with ideologies and organizations that were explicitly ableist and white
> >#supremacist. In doing so, she undermined reproductive freedom and caused irreparable
> >#damage to the health and lives of generations of Black people, Latino people, Indigenous
> >#people, immigrants, people with disabilities, people with low incomes, and many others.
> >...
> >#Planned Parenthood denounces Margaret Sanger’s belief in eugenics. Planned Parenthood
> >#believes that all people — of every race, religion, gender identity, ability, immigration status,
> >#and geography — are full human beings with the right to determine their own future and
> >#decide, without coercion or judgment, whether and when to have children.
> >
> >https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/cc/2e/cc2e84f2-126f-41a5-a24b-43e093c47b2c/210414-sanger-opposition-claims-p01.pdf
> Just as Charles Darwin's writings don't describe current ToE, so too
> Margaret Sanger's writings don't describe current Planned Parenthood
> policies.

When I write about the current ToE, I almost never say anything about
Charles Darwin's writings.

I said nothing about Margaret Sanger's writings. [Bob Casanova did, though.] I focused solely and exclusively
on what Planned Parenthood says about Sanger, about her beliefs, and about her actions.

Hence you are off topic when you write:

>Quotemining historical writings is a basis for many PRATTs
> used by pseudoskeptics.

Congratulations on not quotemining Margaret Sanger's writings,
which really are historical. You may feel free to accuse Bob Casanova
of quotemining a historical writing.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 17:52:04 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 1:50:31 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 14:49:46 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:25 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
>> >> > <GlennS...@msn.com>:
>> >> > >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
>> >> > >
>> >> > >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
>> >> More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
>> >
>> >> Yes; stupid question; anyone with any compassion; yes
>> >> > >
>> >> > Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
>> >> Yes she was, but of course you rightwing idiots choose to paint her as a racist nazi sympathizer by misquoting, quoting out of context, deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, and outright lies.
>> >
>> >Are you sure you want to label Planned Parenthood as an organization of rightwing idiots?
>
>> Read for comprehension. Zen Cycle said nothing of the kind.
>
>Hence I asked rather than accused.

The wording of your question put the lie to your denial above. There
are millions of things you could have "asked" about. You chose to ask
that one as more of your transparent obfuscating evasion.

>And I explained ramifications to him that will
>probably go over your head, and *a fortiori* Zencycle's, near the beginning
>of the following post:
>
>https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/Fr0bzzNzAgAJ
>
>Now comes the GO part of your GIGO:

<snip your remaining transparent obfuscating garbage out>

[Zen Cycle]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 7:15:32 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 9:20:31 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 5:50:30 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:25 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> > > > > <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> > > > > >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> > > > More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
> > >
> > > > Yes; stupid question; anyone with any compassion; yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
> > > > Yes she was, but of course you rightwing idiots choose to paint her as a racist nazi sympathizer by misquoting, quoting out of context, deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, and outright lies.
>
> > > Are you sure you want to label Planned Parenthood as an organization of rightwing idiots?
>
> > Where exactly did I do that?
> If you replace "nazi" with "white supremacist," does that mean that it is NOT right wing and/or idiotic to
> paint Sanger as one?

Failure to answer the question with an irrelevant distraction duly noted, and subsequently ignored. Another peter-troll failure.

>
> That difference partly accounts for my asking a question rather than making an accusation.
> But then, past experience with you suggests that the difference between asking and accusing is negligible
> in The World According to Zencyle.

No one falls for your glen-esque silly semantic games. The question was an accusation, nothing less. Anyone with a modicum of English grammar comprehension would read it that way. Yet another peter-troll failure.

> > > Here are excerpts from an official statement from PP that may greatly surprise you.
> > >
> > > #Sanger also believed in eugenics — an inherently racist and ableist ideology that labeled
> > > #certain people unfit to have children. Eugenics is the theory that society can be improved
> > > #through planned breeding for “desirable traits” like intelligence and industriousness."
> > >
> > > #Margaret Sanger was so intent on her mission to advocate for birth control that she chose
> > > #to align herself with ideologies and organizations that were explicitly ableist and white
> > > #supremacist. In doing so, she undermined reproductive freedom and caused irreparable
> > > #damage to the health and lives of generations of Black people, Latino people, Indigenous
> > > #people, immigrants, people with disabilities, people with low incomes, and many others.
> > > ...
> > > #Planned Parenthood denounces Margaret Sanger’s belief in eugenics. Planned Parenthood
> > > #believes that all people — of every race, religion, gender identity, ability, immigration status,
> > > #and geography — are full human beings with the right to determine their own future and
> > > #decide, without coercion or judgment, whether and when to have children.
> > >
> > > https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/cc/2e/cc2e84f2-126f-41a5-a24b-43e093c47b2c/210414-sanger-opposition-claims-p01.pdf
> > uh...no.
>
> > That PP claims eugenics is "inherently rascist" is the modern definition of eugenics, not the form Sanger was a proponent of.
> What part of "Planned Parenthood denounces Margaret Sanger’s belief in eugenics" didn't
> you understand?

I understand it perfectly. You, otoh, seem perfectly content to conflate the historical differences between the type of eugenics Sanger espoused versus that of the nazi regime (as well as subsequent american applications).

> > Planned Parenthood does _not_ label Sanger as a racist nazi sympathizer s you imply.
> "s you imply" is polemical nonsense.

No, it's rather straightforward. Stop deflecting.

>"rightwing idiots" has a lot of latitude for modifying the precise wording.

What gives you the right to modify my statements without my consent?

> I suggested one change above, again asking a question. Feel free
> to modify "racist" to a form that you feel comfortable defending what Planned Parenthood wrote.

No need. I made my point rather succintly.

> > If you had bothered to read the links I posted upthread you would see where she was adamantly against any forced birth control, especially racially based.
> If you had bothered to read what I quoted below, you know that you are blowing smoke:

I did, and noted it was another attempt at obfuscation. Another peter-troll failure.

>
> [repeated from below]
> > > For example, [Sanger] endorsed the 1927 Buck v. Bell
> > > decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that
> > > states could forcibly sterilize people deemed “unfit”
> > > without their consent and sometimes without their
> > > knowledge. The acceptance of this decision by
> > > Sanger and other thought leaders laid the foundation
> > > for tens of thousands of people to be sterilized, often
> > > against their will. (Chesler, 1992, 485)
> [end of repost]
> > It's very clear in her own writings. It's a regrettable kneejerk position by PP, but necessary in the face of ignorant rubes who buy into the right-wing spew (as you have done).
> Correction: as the quotes (like the one above) have done by your standards. With more to come below.

Irrelevant.

> All endorsed by PP.

So?

>
> You have defamed me by conflating my opinion with that of PP. I haven't read enough on my
> own to support the things PP says about Sanger, and only setting the record straight
> as to what PP has publicly stated.

No one is disputing what PP claims about Sanger other than the fact that I disagree with their claim "eugenics is inherently racist". They've stated their opinion, I've stated mine. You haven't stated any opinion.

> > Besides that, the document you linked seems to be the most recent rework of one that has existed since 2004
> >
> > 2004: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/8013/9611/6937/Opposition_Claims_About_Margaret_Sanger.pdf
> > 2016: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2018/18-483/18-483-2.pdf (I have no idea why this is on the SCOTUS website)
> >
> > Both older papers have the following which was removed from the 2021 edition
> I wonder why it was removed. Do you suppose the fact that the last Margaret Sanger award was
> handed out in 2015 is closely related to the removal?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger_Awards
>
> Interesting: Wikipedia gives no clue as to why the awarding stopped.
> But then, even Slate, an organization no one would dream of calling "right wing",
> and is generally "progressive," wrote:
>
> "(A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood did not respond to a question about why the organization stopped issuing the award.)"
> https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/07/planned-parenthood-margaret-sanger-history.html

It's a regrettable kneejerk position by PP, but necessary in the face of ignorant rubes who buy into the right-wing spew (as you have done).

> >

> > "she consistently and firmly
> > repudiated any strictly racial application of eugenics
> > principles. For example, Sanger vocally opposed
> > the racial stereotyping that effected passage of
> > the Immigration Act of 1924, on the grounds that
> > intelligence and other inherited traits vary by
> > individual and not by group (Chesler, 1992, 2007)."
> My guess as to why they removed the above: they decided that leaving this in would cause too much confusion,
> given that they decided to put in the following:
>
> [repeated from above:]
> > > #Sanger also believed in eugenics — an inherently racist and ableist ideology that labeled
> > > #certain people unfit to have children.
>
>
> >
> > And of course your intellectually dishonesty runs amok again,
> "again" is a third defamation on top of the the one above and the part before "again".

It isn't defamation when it's true.

> > since the paper you link very specifically states "there is no evidence that Sanger, or the Federation, intended to coerce Black women into using birth control:"
> ...except for those deemed "mentally defective" or otherwise "unfit to have children."
> Black women are no less likely to fit the description than white women or Hispanic women or...

Ah, I see, in peter world , any statement which does not contain qualifiers regarding race is inherently racist....got it. Another silly semantic peter-troll failure.

> > > > The quote below is a perfect case in point.
> > > > >
> > > > > “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate
> > > > > the Negro population and the minister is the man who can
> > > > > straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their
> > > > > more rebellious members.” ~ Letter from Margaret Sanger to
> > > > > Dr. C.J. Gamble, December 10th, 1939
> > > > >
> > > > > This is usually denied vehemently, or ignored.
> > > > It's usually denied or ignored because of your and other rightwing idiots clear intent to malign Sanger through implication. Yes Bob, you're implying that Sanger was a racist who supported genocide vis eugenics.
> "genocide" accuses Bob of reading that intent into what he quoted.
> Not pretending to be able to read Bob's mind, I leave it up to him to tell
> you whether you've done it successfully.

Then stay out of it.

> Continued in next reply, with part of the above added for context.

<yawn>

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 6:05:32 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 7:15:32 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 9:20:31 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 5:50:30 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:25 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > > > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> > > > > > <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> > > > > > >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> > > > > More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.

Just what "issue" is that?

[Zen Cycle]

Thank you for that completely irrelevant statistical analysis.

> > > The following excerpt, a little earlier in the pdf, tells about Buck v. Bell:
> > >
> > > For example, [Sanger] endorsed the 1927 Buck v. Bell
> > > decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that
> > > states could forcibly sterilize people deemed “unfit”
> > > without their consent and sometimes without their
> > > knowledge. The acceptance of this decision by
> > > Sanger and other thought leaders laid the foundation
> > > for tens of thousands of people to be sterilized, often
> > > against their will. (Chesler, 1992, 485)
> > > END OF EXCERPT
>
> > Sure, through buck V bell. But again, if you hadn't been cherry picking (your favorite form of intellectual dishonesty)
> More defamation by you. See what I wrote above:
> [repeated from above]

Again, It isn't defamation when it's true.

> ...except for those deemed "mentally defective" or otherwise "unfit to have children."
> Black women are no less likely to fit the description than white women or Hispanic women or...
> [end of excerpt]

And again, in peter world , any statement which does not contain qualifiers regarding race is inherently racist....got it. Another silly semantic peter-troll failure.

> > You would also know her agreement was specifically aligned with those deemed unfit to make decisions for themselves, not based on race.
> Where did you get "to make decisions for themselves" from?

Prepare to be edified by Ms. Sangers own words:

https://www.bartleby.com/1013/8.html
"The basic freedom of the world is woman’s freedom. A free race cannot be born of slave mothers. A woman enchained cannot choose but give a measure of that bondage to her sons and daughters. No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother."

From https://borninquisitive.com/margaret-sanger-on-abortion-in-her-own-words.html#margaret-sanger-and-the-pro-life-versus-pro-choice-dichotomy
"Sneers and jests at birth control are giving way to a reverent understanding of the needs of woman. They who to-day deny the right of a woman to control her own body speak with the hardihood of invincible ignorance or with the folly of those blind ones who in all ages have opposed the light of progress."

From https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/bc_or_race_control/:
"I think it is magnificent that we are in on the ground floor, helping Negroes to control their birth rate, to reduce their high infant and maternal death rate, to maintain better standards of health and living for those already born, and to create better opportunities for those who will be born. In other words, we're giving Negroes an opportunity to help themselves, and to rise to their own heights through education and the principles of a democracy."

From https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/ms_abortion/:
" It is for each woman to decide [to have an abortion] for herself, but act at once, whichever way you decide.”
" I claim it is a woman's duty and right to have for herself the right to say when she shall and shall not have children.”"

From the link you posted (which you obviously cherry picked only the parts that support your trolling):
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/cc/2e/cc2e84f2-126f-41a5-a24b-43e093c47b2c/210414-sanger-opposition-claims-p01.pdf
"We maintain that a woman possessing an
adequate knowledge of her reproductive
functions is the best judge of the time and
conditions under which her child should be
brought into the world. We further maintain
that it is her right, regardless of all other
considerations, to determine whether she
shall bear children or not, and how many
children she shall bear if she chooses to
become a mother. ... Only upon a free,
self-determining motherhood can rest any
unshakable structure of racial betterment”


Bad form, peter, bad form....

>
>
> By the way, if you think *I* cherry pick, you ought to see something Erik Simpson did today in sci.bio.paleontology today:
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/26BZZ4NIrHw/m/0lD7vn4FAAAJ
> Re: Yet another evolutionary tree.
>
> Of course, you wouldn't dream of accusing Erik of intellectual dishonesty.

I know very little of paleontology, and even less of sci.bio.paleontology (except that your considered as much of a troll there as you are here). I haven't seen any cases of intellectual dishnesty from Wrik here, and that fact that you're caliming it here makes me suspect it's more of a personal subjective assessment on your part. and no, I'm not going to bother reading it, I'm really not that interested.

> > > >It was a shitty tactic by D'Souza in The End Of Racism (which is no doubt where you read the quote and bought into the lie that it was a racist eugenic program, rather than researching it more and possibly preventing you from looking like a glen-style idiot here). This thread should be retitled "Bad Form, Bob".
> > > Not as bad as you might think; see above and a tidbit below.
> > > >
> > > > Sanger had started a birth control outreach program targeting the black population in southern states because she :
> > > >
> > > > "hoped to help "a group notoriously underprivileged and handicapped to a large measure by a ‘caste' system that operates as an added weight upon their efforts to get a fair share of the better things in life. To give them the means of helping themselves is perhaps the richest gift of all. We believe birth control knowledge brought to this group, is the most direct, constructive aid that can be given them to improve their immediate situation." Sanger viewed the Negro Project as another effort to help African-Americans gain better access to safe contraception and maintain birth control services in their community as she had attempted to do in Harlem a decade earlier when Sanger's Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (BCCRB), in cooperation with the New York Urban League, opened a birth control clinic there."
> > > > https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/bc_or_race_control/
>
> > > No mention of Sanger's support for Buck v. Bell. I wonder how many Black women
> > > deemed to be of low intelligence were sterilized without their knowledge.
> > > Also, the link you provide makes no mention of Sanger catering to white supremacists.
> > _that_ link....Did you bother to check out any of these?
> > https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/
> Why, does any of them give statistics that would answer the question I implicitly
> asked with "I wonder how many Black women..."?

Attempted distraction duly noted. My comment was in reference to the line it was underneath, troll.

> > > The pdf I linked doesn't whitewash this the way the article does. Take a gander at this:
> > >
> > > "Margaret Sanger made a speech on birth control to a women’s auxiliary branch
> > > of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey, in 1926 (Sanger, 1938, 366)."
> > Oooo, a gander!
> >
> > Gander this, asshat - the part you snipped from your link
> ...is not something I ever denied. So much for your vulgar taunt.

no, simply more of your trolling in posting that she attended a KKK conference without noting "there is no evidence to support the claim that Sanger supported “black genocide.”

> > "Sanger was so intent on her
> > mission to advocate for birth control that she chose
> > to align herself with ideologies and organizations
> > that were explicitly ableist and white supremacist.
> <snip to the part I had omitted:>
> > However, there is no evidence to support the claim
> > that Sanger supported “black genocide.” "
> Agreed.
>
>
> TO BE CONCLUDED tomorrow.

<yawn>


>
>
> Peter Nyikos

[Zen Cycle]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:35:32 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > > > > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> > > > > > > <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> > > > > > > >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> > > > > > More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.
>
> Just what "issue" is that?

Again, If it isn't obvious to you why an op-ed piece regarding censorship in the abortion debate is off topic in talk.origins, it only goes to show (once again) that you have no business being here.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:35:31 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 17:52:04 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 1:50:31 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 14:49:46 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:25 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> >> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> >> >> > <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> >> >> > >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> >> >> More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
> >> >
> >> >> Yes; stupid question; anyone with any compassion; yes
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
> >> >> Yes she was, but of course you rightwing idiots choose to paint her as a racist nazi sympathizer by misquoting, quoting out of context, deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, and outright lies.
> >> >
> >> >Are you sure you want to label Planned Parenthood as an organization of rightwing idiots?
> >
> >> Read for comprehension. Zen Cycle said nothing of the kind.
> >
> >Hence I asked rather than accused.
> The wording of your question put the lie to your denial above.

Read for comprehension. Not here, but in the link I gave below.

> There are millions of things you could have "asked" about.

With n,999,990 of them off-topic, and the remaining 9 rather pointless at that stage of the post.

Quelle surprise: you didn't even hint at what ANY of the remaining 9 might have been.

> You chose to ask that one as more of your transparent obfuscating evasion.

What obfuscation, what evasion, and why is it transparent?

Should I have emulated your style just now by accusing you of lying about those
three things, and then writing "But you could prove me wrong by..." ?

> >And I explained ramifications to him that will
> >probably go over your head, and *a fortiori* Zencycle's, near the beginning
> >of the following post:
> >
> >https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/Fr0bzzNzAgAJ

And sure enough, it went over your head. I'm curious to see whether it also went
over the head of He-Who-Is-Named-After-_Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_.

> >Now comes the GO part of your GIGO:

> <snip your remaining transparent obfuscating garbage out>

You couldn't cope with it the way you coped with what I had written at the beginning, I see.


Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

“I just farted”:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/MgdJbpfE-pk/m/yDdbzzL3Q6EJ

[peter2...@gmail.com]

But talk about abortion is not off topic, eh?

########################### Zencycle posting style on

Is that why you ran away from the following with your tail between your legs?

> > > Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:

> > Yes she was, but of course you rightwing idiots choose to paint her as a racist nazi sympathizer by misquoting, quoting out of context, deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, and outright lies. The quote below is a perfect case in point.
> So you are specifically including both Bob and I with such alleged rightwing idiots.
> More curious claims, since you identify below Sanger's opinion on abortion, that corresponds to the current rightwing effort to minimize abortion, which you regard as being "compassionate".

############################### Zencycle posting style off

Lest the above went over your head, you left the quoted text without daring to address Glenn's words in the end,
while going on to emulate Vince Lombardi's dictum "the best defense is a good offense".

The word "good" only describes your subsequent offense in the sense of "good for the
fanatically anti-Glenn contingent of talk.origins."

> it only goes to show (once again) that you have no business being here.

Does "here" mean "talk.origins"? If so, you are not only and anti-Glenn fanatic,
you are a rabid anti-Glenn fanatic.

If not, why did you say "(once again)" the FIRST time you responded to Glenn on this thread?

Space provided below for you to accuse me of trolling and/or obfuscation.

.

.

Space provided below to explain your grounds for the accusation in a way that
a disinterested neutral intelligent person could comprehend.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Peter Nyikos

[Zen Cycle]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 1:45:32 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:25:32 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:35:32 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > > > > > > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> > > > > > > > > <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> > > > > > > > > >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> > > > > > > > More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.
> > >
> > > Just what "issue" is that?
>
> > Again, If it isn't obvious to you why an op-ed piece regarding censorship in the abortion debate is off topic in talk.origins,
> But talk about abortion is not off topic, eh?

I didn't post the OP, asshat.

> ########################### Zencycle posting style on
>
> Is that why you ran away from the following with your tail between your legs?
> > > > Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
> > > Yes she was, but of course you rightwing idiots choose to paint her as a racist nazi sympathizer by misquoting, quoting out of context, deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, and outright lies. The quote below is a perfect case in point.
> > So you are specifically including both Bob and I with such alleged rightwing idiots.
> > More curious claims, since you identify below Sanger's opinion on abortion, that corresponds to the current rightwing effort to minimize abortion, which you regard as being "compassionate".
> ############################### Zencycle posting style off
>
> Lest the above went over your head, you left the quoted text without daring to address Glenn's words in the end,
> while going on to emulate Vince Lombardi's dictum "the best defense is a good offense".

You confuse "run away' with 'missed'. Unlike glen (and apparently you these days) I have a life that doesn't revolve around trolling newsgroups. You want a response to that, asshat? sure.

1) yes, glen is a right wing idiot. Bob can be, but not all the time. In this case he was being one.

2) Sangers opinion on abortion is one of choice. She abhorred it but understood in some cases it was necessary, and understood it was an issue to be handled by the pregnant woman. Contrast that with the GOP stance that it should be completely banned.

"The party adamantly believes that the rights guaranteed to all Americans in the Fourteenth Amendment apply to unborn children as well. They support a constitutional amendment which states this, and which will end abortion entirely. "
https://www.republicanviews.org/republican-views-on-abortion/
So glen was wrong - as usual.

3) Given that glen was wrong about any similarity between The Sanger and GOP view on abortion, and that at no time did I state anything about sangers view being compassionate, I couldn't begin to understand how glen got the idea that the GOP view is one I would call 'compassionate'.

Now, You can run away with your tail between your legs.

> The word "good" only describes your subsequent offense in the sense of "good for the
> fanatically anti-Glenn contingent of talk.origins."
> > it only goes to show (once again) that you have no business being here.
> Does "here" mean "talk.origins"?

Where else would I mean?

> If so, you are not only and anti-Glenn fanatic,
> you are a rabid anti-Glenn fanatic.
>
> If not, why did you say "(once again)" the FIRST time you responded to Glenn on this thread?

The sentence where I noted glens ignorance was the second time in that post I noted it. Go ahead and check, it's hidden in plain sight. (too bad you still haven't taken this forums collective advice that you take a reading comprehension course)

> Space provided below for you to accuse me of trolling and/or obfuscation.
>

> Space provided below to explain your grounds for the accusation in a way that
> a disinterested neutral intelligent person could comprehend.
>

Sorry skippy, not gonna dance to your troll tune.

[Glenn]

This is so cool! Wiki even uses it as a reference in at least one article.
Not a single name or affiliation mentioned anywhere. Just "our".
Trusted reference? Oh yea.

[Zen Cycle]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 2:55:32 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 11:25:32 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > "The party adamantly believes that the rights guaranteed to all Americans in the Fourteenth Amendment apply to unborn children as well. They support a constitutional amendment which states this, and which will end abortion entirely. "
> > https://www.republicanviews.org/republican-views-on-abortion/
> > So glen was wrong - as usual.
> This is so cool! Wiki even uses it as a reference in at least one article.
> Not a single name or affiliation mentioned anywhere. Just "our".
> Trusted reference? Oh yea.
> >

And of course, you post nothing to show it's wrong, or even how you have any reference that shows Sangers blatantly pro-choice stance even remotely resembles the GOPs stance.

[Glenn]

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 6:50:25 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:25 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> > <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> > >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> > >
> > >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.

What was biased and uninformed in the article? Surely you read it and you'll be specific in your answer. LOL.

> > >
> > >Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
> Yes; stupid question; anyone with any compassion; yes
> > >

> > Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
> Yes she was, but of course you rightwing idiots choose to paint her as a racist nazi sympathizer by misquoting, quoting out of context, deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, and outright lies. The quote below is a perfect case in point.
> >

> > “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate
> > the Negro population and the minister is the man who can
> > straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their
> > more rebellious members.” ~ Letter from Margaret Sanger to
> > Dr. C.J. Gamble, December 10th, 1939
> >
> > This is usually denied vehemently, or ignored.

> It's usually denied or ignored because of your and other rightwing idiots clear intent to malign Sanger through implication. Yes Bob, you're implying that Sanger was a racist who supported genocide vis eugenics. It was a shitty tactic by D'Souza in The End Of Racism (which is no doubt where you read the quote and bought into the lie that it was a racist eugenic program, rather than researching it more and possibly preventing you from looking like a glen-style idiot here). This thread should be retitled "Bad Form, Bob".

>
> Sanger had started a birth control outreach program targeting the black population in southern states because she :
>
> "hoped to help "a group notoriously underprivileged and handicapped to a large measure by a ‘caste' system that operates as an added weight upon their efforts to get a fair share of the better things in life. To give them the means of helping themselves is perhaps the richest gift of all. We believe birth control knowledge brought to this group, is the most direct, constructive aid that can be given them to improve their immediate situation." Sanger viewed the Negro Project as another effort to help African-Americans gain better access to safe contraception and maintain birth control services in their community as she had attempted to do in Harlem a decade earlier when Sanger's Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (BCCRB), in cooperation with the New York Urban League, opened a birth control clinic there."
> https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/bc_or_race_control/
>

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 2:25:32 PM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 1:45:32 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:25:32 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:35:32 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > > > > > > > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> > > > > > > > > > <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> > > > > > > > > More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.
> > > >
> > > > Just what "issue" is that?
> >
> > > Again, If it isn't obvious to you why an op-ed piece regarding censorship in the abortion debate is off topic in talk.origins,
> > But talk about abortion is not off topic, eh?

> I didn't post the OP, asshat.

The logic behind this escapes me, because you wrote "in talk.origins"; one
would think that this would apply even if the OP had been about the op-ed piece,
rendering all talk about it off-topic. Instead, you are implying that
anything in talk.origins that is in the OP is on-topic.

I don't know whether you are of a sufficiently high intelligence to follow
that last paragraph, but it's unimportant, because this inconsistency
pales into insignificance compared to the flagrant double standard
you follow below.

> > ########################### Zencycle posting style on
> >
> > Is that why you ran away from the following with your tail between your legs?
> > > > > Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
> > > > Yes she was, but of course you rightwing idiots choose to paint her as a racist nazi sympathizer by misquoting, quoting out of context, deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, and outright lies. The quote below is a perfect case in point.
> > > So you are specifically including both Bob and I with such alleged rightwing idiots.
> > > More curious claims, since you identify below Sanger's opinion on abortion, that corresponds to the current rightwing effort to minimize abortion, which you regard as being "compassionate".
> > ############################### Zencycle posting style off
> >
> > Lest the above went over your head, you left the quoted text without daring to address Glenn's words in the end,
> > while going on to emulate Vince Lombardi's dictum "the best defense is a good offense".

Now comes the display of your double standard:

> You confuse "run away' with 'missed'.

I was following your style [see above] where you confused "slinked away" with "missed" here:

______________________________ excerpt _______________________
It was explained to him exactly why and how he made an idiot of himself here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/Ub0xSO20lR8/m/tlxRgO8NAgAJ

How do we know it was "spot on"? by the simple fact that he never responded to that post (aka slinked away with his tail between his legs).
============================== end of excerpt
from
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/Ub0xSO20lR8/m/mSgd7aMSBwAJ
Re: language evolution
Aug 13, 2022, 6:35:20 AM (11 days ago)


Wait, it gets worse: Glenn never responded to jillery's post that you accused him of "slinking away" from,
because *instead* he responded to André Isaak, a vastly more respectable and responsible person
than jillery, and who was responding to the SAME post by Glenn to which jillery was responding.
And André also tried to explain the SAME issue to Glenn that jillery did.

> Unlike glen (and apparently you these days) I have a life that doesn't revolve around trolling newsgroups.

Wait, it gets still worse. Unlike the case of Glenn "slinking away," you slunk away from the above excerpt
right in the middle of a reply you made to Glenn. So your last line is intellectually dishonest.

I hadn't noticed you consciously using double standards before, but this example is so
flagrant that it will be permanently associated with you in my mind.

> You want a response to that, asshat? sure.
>
> 1) yes, glen is a right wing idiot.

Glenn has a compassionate attitude towards trans people. Do you think that is typical
of right wing idiots?

> Bob can be, but not all the time. In this case he was being one.

"not all the time" is an equivocation. Do you think he actually is right-of-center in his
beliefs/behavior on the whole? I haven't gotten that impression in the decade or so
that I have observed him.

> 2) Sangers opinion on abortion is one of choice.

Anachronism. The label "pro-choice" and the public relations attachment of the word "choice" to abortion
came after Sanger's death.

Sanger didn't treat involuntary sterilization of "unfit" people to be a matter of choice, as you
know from what I documented.

> She abhorred it but understood in some cases it was necessary,

In less than one percent of the cases.

> and understood it was an issue to be handled by the pregnant woman.


> Contrast that with the GOP stance that it should be completely banned.

Party platforms are little more than publicity stunts. They are more honored
in the breach than in their observance. [Do you know where that last sentence comes from?]

The real test will be complete in the November elections. But the GOP primaries are
also a test. How do you read their outcomes?


Remainder deleted, to be dealt with tomorrow.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

I hear there is a position open at CNN. You should apply, you may be the US' only hope of surviving the breakdown of society.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Hemidactylus shows his solidarity with jillery in his two-liner bottom posting.
But there's more to it than this.

Here comes Hemidactylus's two-liner. He seems mighty proud of it,
since he has used it twice today. The other time he did it in solidarity
with Ron O,, for whom jillery is oldest ally still posting to t.o.

> “I just farted”:
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/MgdJbpfE-pk/m/yDdbzzL3Q6EJ

I made an appropriate response to it here:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/0GJ7i2VKEbg/m/U-xQw6-0AgAJ
Re: More evolution by breaking things?

But there is more to that two-liner than meets the eye, even in both posts
put together. Unlike Glenn's use in the 2015 post to which the link takes one, the words
“I just farted” would be a perfect epitaph for Hemidactylus unless he
cleans up his act. The following post, also done today, explains why in stark detail.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/XbEsTouIR3g/m/Ft-Oqva9AgAJ
Re: Larry and Wikipedia go at it again


Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

OMG seriously? Drama queen much?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Now comes the third and final reply to Zen Cycle's long post, with a little bit repeated
at the beginning for context.

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 9:20:31 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 5:50:30 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:25 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> > > > <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> > > > >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> > > > >
> > > > >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> > > More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.
> > > > >
> > > > >Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?

You evidently forgot about that last question below, Zen Cycle.

<huge snip to get to the part I hadn't gotten around to yet>

> > > So, yes, She didn't want word to go out that they were intending a eugenics program, because they weren't,

You are confusing "eugenics" with "genocide." Sanger expressly used the word "exterminate"
in this context, and your substitution is a rewriting of history.

> and they knew certain entities (like the catholic church) and individuals (like you) were claiming a birth control outreach program was genocide.

Were they? Where's the evidence that the Catholic Church actually made such claims at that time?

And if so, why mention only the Catholic Church? Practically ALL Protestant churches were
completely opposed to birth control until a Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church
in the late1930's. And even then, it was just for married couples under special circumstances.

> > >
> > > Of course, we shouldn't forget the fact that this thread is about abortion,

Almost, but not quite: in the OP, Glenn brought up a pro-life concern at the other end of life.
See above.

> > > and Sanger was also quite clear regarding her opinion of abortion - She was against it except to save the life of the mother.:
> > >
> > > “It is an alternative that I cannot too strongly condemn. Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.”
> > > https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/ms_abortion/
> > >
> > > Of course, this is usually denied vehemently or ignored by people like you with right wing agendas

Funny, that you should harp on this. I would think that people with abortion promoting
agendas would prefer that this be vehemently denied or ignored at least to the same extent.

That is, until PP started to distance itself from Margaret Sanger, with the watershed year
perhaps 2016, when it ceased to give out the Margaret Sanger award. By last year
they were explicitly denouncing her for her belief in eugenics, as documented at the
beginning of my first reply to this post of yours.

> > > who wish to paint the Democratic as racists because reconstructionist southeastern states were dominated by democrats.

> > You ducked Glenn's challenge to support the "people like you" claim with actual
> > examples, which would have given Glenn a chance to distance himself from
> > such people,

> yup, I ducked a swing-and-a-miss on his part.

Rather, slunk away from it with your tail between your legs. See my
note earlier today about your audacious double standard wrt this formula of yours.

> > just as Planned Parenthood has distanced itself from Margaret Sanger.

> Glen wouldn't have been able to distance himself from the Dinesh D'Souzas of the world, he's lock step.

Brave words for someone who continues to slink away from Glenn's challenge
with a vague unexplained formula "the Dinesh D'Souzas of the world" followed by
a specific phrase that is rendered meaningless by the vagueness of the formula.

>Besides that, Planned Parenthhood distanced itself from Snagers promotion of eugenics, and the paper you linked goes to great lengths to defend her positions on abortion and race, with the last three pages under the heading "Published Statements that Distort or Misquote Margaret Sanger".

You are deliberately barking up the wrong tree. Bob Casanova is the one who is guilty
of quoting Sanger out of context, and it is he about whom you wrote the following
silly comment.

"It was a shitty tactic by D'Souza in The End Of Racism (which is no doubt where you read the quote..."

No doubt, eh? Your "D'Souza" claim against Glenn is so far from this specific claim about Bob,
that it amounts to the fallacy of guilt by association.


By the way, I am using the word "specific" in a far more standard way than the strained
way you tried to use it on the "language evolution" thread.


Peter Nyikos

PS The correct spelling is Glenn, not Glen or glen. While I'm on the subject, would you
also prefer that I call you "Zen Cycle" rather than "Zencycle" or "zencycle"?

[Glenn]

I would prefer to call him Mad Dog, having chewed off all his extremities long ago.

[jillery]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 18:54:20 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Now comes the third and final reply to Zen Cycle's long post, with a little bit repeated
>at the beginning for context.

That you use a trilogy to reply only shows the volume of transparent
obfuscating evasions you post.

[jillery]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 09:14:50 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 11:35:31 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 17:52:04 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 1:50:31 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 14:49:46 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:25 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> >> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
>> >> >> > <GlennS...@msn.com>:
>> >> >> > >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
>> >> >> More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
>> >> >
>> >> >> Yes; stupid question; anyone with any compassion; yes
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:
>> >> >> Yes she was, but of course you rightwing idiots choose to paint her as a racist nazi sympathizer by misquoting, quoting out of context, deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, and outright lies.
>> >> >
>> >> >Are you sure you want to label Planned Parenthood as an organization of rightwing idiots?
>> >
>> >> Read for comprehension. Zen Cycle said nothing of the kind.
>> >
>> >Hence I asked rather than accused.

>> The wording of your question puts the lie to your denial above.

>
>Read for comprehension. Not here, but in the link I gave below.
>> There are millions of things you could have "asked" about.
>
>With n,999,990 of them off-topic, and the remaining 9 rather pointless at that stage of the post.
>
>Quelle surprise: you didn't even hint at what ANY of the remaining 9 might have been.

Only you would expect me to come up with transparent obfuscating
evasions for you.

>> You chose to ask that one as more of your transparent obfuscating evasion.
>
>What obfuscation, what evasion, and why is it transparent?
>
>Should I have emulated your style just now by accusing you of lying about those
>three things, and then writing "But you could prove me wrong by..." ?

"should" is a word you rarely apply to yourself. However, if you did
as you claim I do, that would be an improvement.

>> >And I explained ramifications to him that will
>> >probably go over your head, and *a fortiori* Zencycle's, near the beginning
>> >of the following post:
>> >
>> >https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/Fr0bzzNzAgAJ
>
>And sure enough, it went over your head. I'm curious to see whether it also went
>over the head of He-Who-Is-Named-After-_Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_.

You mistake going over my head for your failure to make a coherent
point.

>> >Now comes the GO part of your GIGO:
>
>> <snip your remaining transparent obfuscating garbage out>
>
>You couldn't cope with it the way you coped with what I had written at the beginning, I see.

You mistake my inability to cope for ignoring your transparent
obfuscating evasions.

[Zen Cycle]

said the Black Knight

[Zen Cycle]

Compling the peters last two replies to compensate for his attempts at obfuscation.

On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 5:30:33 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 2:25:32 PM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 1:45:32 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 10:25:32 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > > > On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:35:32 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > > > > > > > > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> > > > > > > > > > > <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > >"But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
> > > > > > > > > > More biased and uniformed drivel from rightwing idiots, being peddled in a forum having nothing to do with the issue by a rightwing idiot.
> > > > >

> > > > > Just what "issue" is that?
> > >
> > > > Again, If it isn't obvious to you why an op-ed piece regarding censorship in the abortion debate is off topic in talk.origins,
> > > But talk about abortion is not off topic, eh?
>
> > I didn't post the OP, asshat.
> The logic behind this escapes me, because you wrote "in talk.origins";

Most logic escapes you. The point was that the OP was off-topic and glen (and you) are too dense to understand it (hence his attempt to troll me with his "issue" post. I've answered that here, he's just too stupid to get it)

> one
> would think that this would apply even if the OP had been about the op-ed piece,
> rendering all talk about it off-topic. Instead, you are implying that
> anything in talk.origins that is in the OP is on-topic.

Nope, this is you being intellectually dishonest again (or simply dense, It's tough to tell with you)

>
> I don't know whether you are of a sufficiently high intelligence to follow
> that last paragraph, but it's unimportant, because this inconsistency
> pales into insignificance compared to the flagrant double standard
> you follow below.
> > > ########################### Zencycle posting style on
> > >

> > > Is that why you ran away from the following with your tail between your legs?

> > > > > > Margaret Sanger was perfectly clear regarding her motives:

> > > > > Yes she was, but of course you rightwing idiots choose to paint her as a racist nazi sympathizer by misquoting, quoting out of context, deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, and outright lies. The quote below is a perfect case in point.
> > > > So you are specifically including both Bob and I with such alleged rightwing idiots.
> > > > More curious claims, since you identify below Sanger's opinion on abortion, that corresponds to the current rightwing effort to minimize abortion, which you regard as being "compassionate".
> > > ############################### Zencycle posting style off
> > >
> > > Lest the above went over your head, you left the quoted text without daring to address Glenn's words in the end,
> > > while going on to emulate Vince Lombardi's dictum "the best defense is a good offense".
> Now comes the display of your double standard:
> > You confuse "run away' with 'missed'.
> I was following your style [see above] where you confused "slinked away" with "missed" here:

Here's a grammar lesson for you. In this context, the word "missed" means I didn't see it. I do make mistakes, that was one of them.

>
> ______________________________ excerpt _______________________
> It was explained to him exactly why and how he made an idiot of himself here:
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/Ub0xSO20lR8/m/tlxRgO8NAgAJ
>
> How do we know it was "spot on"? by the simple fact that he never responded to that post (aka slinked away with his tail between his legs).
> ============================== end of excerpt
> from
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/Ub0xSO20lR8/m/mSgd7aMSBwAJ
> Re: language evolution
> Aug 13, 2022, 6:35:20 AM (11 days ago)
>
>
> Wait, it gets worse: Glenn never responded to jillery's post that you accused him of "slinking away" from,
> because *instead* he responded to André Isaak, a vastly more respectable and responsible person
> than jillery, and who was responding to the SAME post by Glenn to which jillery was responding.
> And André also tried to explain the SAME issue to Glenn that jillery did.

Um, no. I was referring to the post where I called him out on confusing grammatical gender with gender pronouns. It was a short post, and very specific, not bloated with distractions and distortions that you're famous for. That's the link I posted, but as usually you dug somewhere else into the post to claim he did something he didn't in order to save your similar mistake. Try and keep up, skippy.

> > Unlike glen (and apparently you these days) I have a life that doesn't revolve around trolling newsgroups.
> Wait, it gets still worse. Unlike the case of Glenn "slinking away," you slunk away from the above excerpt
> right in the middle of a reply you made to Glenn. So your last line is intellectually dishonest.

Again, "missed" is not "slinking away". Get it straight, you're only digging a deeper idiot hole for yourself.

>
> I hadn't noticed you consciously using double standards before, but this example is so
> flagrant that it will be permanently associated with you in my mind.
> > You want a response to that, asshat? sure.
> >
> > 1) yes, glen is a right wing idiot.
> Glenn has a compassionate attitude towards trans people. Do you think that is typical
> of right wing idiots?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Mostly no. Glen may have a trans family member which tempered his attitude, who knows (and I don't really care). Good on him.

> > Bob can be, but not all the time. In this case he was being one.
> "not all the time" is an equivocation. Do you think he actually is right-of-center in his
> beliefs/behavior on the whole? I haven't gotten that impression in the decade or so
> that I have observed him.

Then start paying attention. His first response in this thread is one point of proof. Of course, since the political "center" in this country is a moving target depending on the viewers perspective, you may consider him a leftie (And quite frankly, I don't care what you think about Bob).

> > 2) Sangers opinion on abortion is one of choice.
> Anachronism. The label "pro-choice" and the public relations attachment of the word "choice" to abortion
> came after Sanger's death.

So?

>
> Sanger didn't treat involuntary sterilization of "unfit" people to be a matter of choice, as you
> know from what I documented.

Um...duh.

> > She abhorred it but understood in some cases it was necessary,
> In less than one percent of the cases.

She didn't put any statiscal requirement on it. More obfuscation on your part.

> > and understood it was an issue to be handled by the pregnant woman.
>
>
> > Contrast that with the GOP stance that it should be completely banned.
> Party platforms are little more than publicity stunts.

Sure peter, you go with that.

> They are more honored
> in the breach than in their observance. [Do you know where that last sentence comes from?]

DKDC

>
> The real test will be complete in the November elections. But the GOP primaries are
> also a test. How do you read their outcomes?

That there is a substantial idiotic loud-mouthed minority more than willing to cult-follow a charlatan who feeds them bullshit about how the election was stolen. IOW, the left side of the bell-curve has been completely manipulated into a completely unamerican attitude that there is no room for compromise and that this country _should_ be run by a minority.

>
>
> Remainder deleted, to be dealt with tomorrow.

<pffft>

> > > > >
> > > > > >Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?
> You evidently forgot about that last question below, Zen Cycle.

No, I answered it. Go back and read for comprehension.

>
> <huge snip to get to the part I hadn't gotten around to yet>
> > > > So, yes, She didn't want word to go out that they were intending a eugenics program, because they weren't,
> You are confusing "eugenics" with "genocide." Sanger expressly used the word "exterminate"
> in this context, and your substitution is a rewriting of history.

um, no. I'm not rewriting anything. You're the one confusing Sangers version of eugenics with the modern interpretation.

> > and they knew certain entities (like the catholic church) and individuals (like you) were claiming a birth control outreach program was genocide.
> Were they? Where's the evidence that the Catholic Church actually made such claims at that time?

Read my links

>
> And if so, why mention only the Catholic Church? Practically ALL Protestant churches were
> completely opposed to birth control until a Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church
> in the late1930's. And even then, it was just for married couples under special circumstances.

Because the catholic church was involved politically. Read some history.

> > > >
> > > > Of course, we shouldn't forget the fact that this thread is about abortion,
> Almost, but not quite: in the OP, Glenn brought up a pro-life concern at the other end of life.
> See above.

Wow, you really do need to take a reading comprehension course.

> > > > and Sanger was also quite clear regarding her opinion of abortion - She was against it except to save the life of the mother.:
> > > >
> > > > “It is an alternative that I cannot too strongly condemn. Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.”
> > > > https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/ms_abortion/
> > > >
> > > > Of course, this is usually denied vehemently or ignored by people like you with right wing agendas
> Funny, that you should harp on this. I would think that people with abortion promoting
> agendas would prefer that this be vehemently denied or ignored at least to the same extent.

We'd all be happy if you would think at all.

>
> That is, until PP started to distance itself from Margaret Sanger, with the watershed year
> perhaps 2016, when it ceased to give out the Margaret Sanger award. By last year
> they were explicitly denouncing her for her belief in eugenics, as documented at the
> beginning of my first reply to this post of yours.

And they denied that she was a racist with any intention of a genocidal eugenics program. A point which you intentionally repeated leave out.

> > > > who wish to paint the Democratic as racists because reconstructionist southeastern states were dominated by democrats.
>
> > > You ducked Glenn's challenge to support the "people like you" claim with actual
> > > examples, which would have given Glenn a chance to distance himself from
> > > such people,
>
> > yup, I ducked a swing-and-a-miss on his part.
> Rather, slunk away from it with your tail between your legs.

No slinking, I had already made my point, and glens comment wasn't worth responding to.

> See my
> note earlier today about your audacious double standard wrt this formula of yours.

Interpret it how you want. I see no double standard at all.

> > > just as Planned Parenthood has distanced itself from Margaret Sanger.
>
> > Glen wouldn't have been able to distance himself from the Dinesh D'Souzas of the world, he's lock step.
> Brave words for someone who continues to slink away from Glenn's challenge
> with a vague unexplained formula "the Dinesh D'Souzas of the world" followed by
> a specific phrase that is rendered meaningless by the vagueness of the formula.

Only meaningless due to willful ignorance on your part. There was no slinking. You're conflating slinking with 'didn't answer to peters satisfaction'.

> >Besides that, Planned Parenthhood distanced itself from Snagers promotion of eugenics, and the paper you linked goes to great lengths to defend her positions on abortion and race, with the last three pages under the heading "Published Statements that Distort or Misquote Margaret Sanger".
> You are deliberately barking up the wrong tree. Bob Casanova is the one who is guilty
> of quoting Sanger out of context, and it is he about whom you wrote the following
> silly comment.
>
> "It was a shitty tactic by D'Souza in The End Of Racism (which is no doubt where you read the quote..."
>
> No doubt, eh? Your "D'Souza" claim against Glenn is so far from this specific claim about Bob,
> that it amounts to the fallacy of guilt by association.

You're so far beyond the original context of my comments that the only thing I can recommend to for you:
a) go back to the beginning and read the entire thread again,
b) quit now while you can still get out of the hole you've dug.

> By the way, I am using the word "specific" in a far more standard way than the strained
> way you tried to use it on the "language evolution" thread.

Attempt at distraction duly noted and subsequently ignored

> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS The correct spelling is Glenn, not Glen or glen.

I prefer 'sparky' and 'silly little troll'

> While I'm on the subject, would you
> also prefer that I call you "Zen Cycle" rather than "Zencycle" or "zencycle"?

You be you.

And just so you know, I'm back at work from vacation and won't have time for any more of your shenanigans for a while.

[Zen Cycle]

On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 3:40:33 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 18:54:20 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Now comes the third and final reply to Zen Cycle's long post, with a little bit repeated
> >at the beginning for context.
> That you use a trilogy to reply only shows the volume of transparent
> obfuscating evasions you post.
> --

It's hard to tell whether his parsing out his responses is an intentional obfuscation tactic or he really can't keep it straight in his own head. I suspect it may be a bit of both.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/24/22 2:26 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 2:25:32 PM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:

> [...]

>> Contrast that with the GOP stance that it should be completely banned.
>
> Party platforms are little more than publicity stunts. They are more honored
> in the breach than in their observance. [Do you know where that last sentence comes from?]
>
> The real test will be complete in the November elections. But the GOP primaries are
> also a test. How do you read their outcomes?

The GOP no longer exists. The Republican Party does, but it is very
different from what it was when I was a member years ago. It explicitly
declared itself fascist when it let its national platform become
"whatever Trump wants"; it is about as far as one can get from the party
of Lincoln.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[Glenn]

On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 9:25:33 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 8/24/22 2:26 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 2:25:32 PM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Contrast that with the GOP stance that it should be completely banned.
> >
> > Party platforms are little more than publicity stunts. They are more honored
> > in the breach than in their observance. [Do you know where that last sentence comes from?]
> >
> > The real test will be complete in the November elections. But the GOP primaries are
> > also a test. How do you read their outcomes?
> The GOP no longer exists. The Republican Party does, but it is very
> different from what it was when I was a member years ago. It explicitly
> declared itself fascist when it let its national platform become
> "whatever Trump wants"; it is about as far as one can get from the party
> of Lincoln.
>

Are you sure you are old enough to vote?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 6:15:33 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 3:40:33 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 18:54:20 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> > <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Now comes the third and final reply to Zen Cycle's long post, with a little bit repeated
> > >at the beginning for context.

Jillery is being cravenly dishonest in her formulaic garbage:

> > That you use a trilogy to reply only shows the volume of transparent
> > obfuscating evasions you post.

Cravenly, because jillery "slinked away with her tail between her legs" (as you, Zencycle, would put it,
were you not guilty of the selfsame dishonesty yourself) from the following challenge:

___________________________repost___________________

> You chose to ask that one as more of your transparent obfuscating evasion.

What obfuscation, what evasion, and why is it transparent?

============================ end of repost
from
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/Hd3sJ92qAgAJ

One can observe jillery slinking away in jillery's reply:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uMOdTD1NL8A/m/NNopgCoIAAAJ

This partly explains the word "dishonest": jillery was guilty of defamation
in the reposted words, and is repeating her libelous words here.


Moreover, jillery knows exactly why I split up replies to long posts,
as I will explain below.

There was a time when you saw through jillery, a few years ago, but
you've evidently decided, "If you can't lick 'em, join 'em."

Which is what you are doing below, mindlessly repeating jillery's bluff about obfuscation,
as though jillery had not folded when her bluff was called.

> It's hard to tell whether his parsing out his responses is an intentional obfuscation tactic
> or he really can't keep it straight in his own head. I suspect it may be a bit of both.

You sure know how to pack a lot of mendacity into two lines.

The parceling out [not "parsing out"] is the tactic of an educator,
who believes that 500 line posts talk.origins are almost guaranteed
not to be read by others; which is probably why you and jillery are
trying to goad me into making them, with your artificially manufactured "suspicions."

It's been a strategy of jillery's since at least as far back as 2014. One of her favorite tactics
over the years has been to say, "Right here would have been a good place to..."
when any responsible person would say "be" instead of "have been" under the circumstances.

I've told her time and again how intellectually dishonest this tactic was,
that she was goading me into doing 1,000 line posts which no one would read.
The reason was that if I were to try to anticipate ALL questions about
and ALL objections to what I write, I'd be stuck in a "turtles all the way down"
type situation, explaining my explanations of explanations...


Notice how long a thorough explanation of jillery's dishonest tactics takes: as the old saying goes,
a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on.

With so much space having elapsed, I repeat your display of mendacity:

> It's hard to tell whether his parsing out his responses is an intentional obfuscation tactic
> or he really can't keep it straight in his own head. I suspect it may be a bit of both.

I can keep it straight easily. You couldn't even keep straight a four line analysis
of an illogical thing you claimed, and were forced to resort to a Black Knight routine.

FYI, I've been calling out people for Black Knight routines since 1994, even
posting lists of frequent offenders from time to time. And nobody ever dared to claim
that they didn't belong on the list.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Dangling modifier; correct grammar would be "...since he chewed off all his extremities..."

The intended meaning should be obvious to anyone with a few days' experience of
the dynamics of talk.origins, and what I write below assumes that.
[Of course, it is possible that Zencycle is too obtuse to figure the intended meaning out.]


> said the Black Knight

Mindless use of the term "Black Knight" noted. The original Black Knight in the
Monty Python movie kept taunting the heroes of the film for being cowards
afraid to fight him even after they had lopped off both his arms and both his legs.

Nothing like that is obvious above where Glenn is concerned.

When I use the term to describe trolling behavior, I take all of my description into account,
as in my reply to Zencycle a few minutes ago.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

Yes, but not necessarily. I could have meant that I chewed off all his extremities and why I would now call him Mad Dog.

[jillery]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 12:29:32 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:


...unsatisfied with a trilogy, the peterbot compulsively dives into
n-peat spam.

<snip mindless obfuscating spam>

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Yes. If you either own up to the justice of what I wrote, or try to argue rationally
against it, you will be taking the first step towards becoming a responsible adult.

As the old saying goes, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step."
[This does not imply that the whole journey will be on foot.]


> Drama queen much?

Not at all. And I recommend that you cease and desist from such insults
until you take that first step.

I'm taking into account the outrageously inappropriate and off topic
posting of your "would-be epitaph" to sci.bio.paleontology *before* you posted this.
I am referring to:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/lwIJ-7O_ecE/m/2GXr7aBPAAAJ


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 12:27:05 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

... yet another sequel to his n-peat series. It could arguably be
called n-peterspam.

[Jacob Barr]

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 7:55:24 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> "But it is an odd form of racism that wants more babies of color born rather than fewer."
>
> https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/pro-abortion-mds-want-media-to-cancel-pro-life-voices/
>

> Question, is "abortion care" really health care? What is "health care" really, and who cares? Euthanasia advocates?

Acccording to https://pearsonplace.org/ (the oldest pregnancy clinic in the country), Planned Parenthood has very racist roots. Here is a quote from According to The New York Times, Margaret Sanger said "Birth control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks— those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."

Margaret Sanger was very racist against black African Americans as she refers to the black community as undesired weeds.

Pearson Place denounces this despicable statement made by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. We are sharing this ugly historical note to bring awareness to the evil roots that Planned Parenthood is built on.

You can find the source article that is cited with sources here: https://pearsonplace.org/important-questions-about-planned-parenthood/.