Muslim Bakers and Photographers
- Thread starter ClimateSanity
- Start date
I have a question for you
When you said that this quote:
"...we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.”
wasn't to be found on page 263 or any other nearby pages, did you know that it was on page 101/102?
Being that I get the feeling that you've read Sanger's book enough times to memorize it, I'm thinking the answer to my question is "yes".
gcthomas
New member
It took me all of 30 seconds to use the search window on that book link to find the evidence of your falsehood. Do it yourself — you are getting a reputation for dishonest posts, distorting and misrepresenting sources.
gcthomas
New member
I'm sure you would have been if you were around at that time.
You're the one making the claim, now back up your allegation with proof.
BTW, looking at the quote that nearly made you stroke out, note how the ...are in between sentences:
"Authorities tell us that 75 % of the school-children are defective. This means that no less than fifteen million schoolchildren, out of 22,000,000 in the United States, are physically or mentally below par…We prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.”
Ellipses
Ellipses for omitted material spanning two or more sentences
When a quotation is presented as a single sentence made up of material from two or more original sentences, ellipses should be used for all omitted segments.
http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/ellipses.html
People were racist for another reason back then. It had a lot to do with the fact that the infrastructure and business was built primarily by their race, and didn't want to share it with others. In fact, that's why feminism was considered a sham by most men because the women didn't do jack and yet wanted the keys to the kingdom.
gcthomas
New member
From your link:
You used three dots, hence imply both parts are from a single sentence. QED. Now apologise and withdraw the fabricated "quote".
gcthomas
New member
The women were prevented by the men from doing anything beyond running homes, and you want to blame them for it? I hope you want to remain single, because you won't be seen as much of a catch by any woman (maybe you are so much of a woman hater because you are gay?)
LOL...
I'll tell you what: When you admit that Margaret Sanger was amongst other things a disgusting racist who wanted to murder human beings that she felt were "inferior", we can talk more about the finer points of ellipses.
You didn't see them complaining about being prevented from the draft
And
It wasn't until industrialization was well into the works that women ever wanted anything else. That is, the timing is not a coincidence in the least bit.
The fact of the matter is that women saw that man baked a cake, and wanted it.
Yeah, because that's how you catch women- by being a feminist :rotfl:
If you're the kind of weirdo who needs to be a wad of cookie dough to hope for a relationship, then perhaps you would. I however do not, and find you all's lashing out with those kind of statements nothing more than desperation on the subject. You all don't have anything to come back with, so you act, well, like a girl
gcthomas
New member
You didn't see them complaining about being prevented from the draft
And
It wasn't until industrialization was well into the works that women ever wanted anything else. That is, the timing is not a coincidence in the least bit.
The fact of the matter is that women saw that man baked a cake, and wanted it.
Yeah, because that's how you catch women- by being a feminist :rotfl:
If you're the kind of weirdo who needs to be a wad of cookie dough to hope for a relationship, then perhaps you would. I however do not, and find you all's lashing out with those kind of statements nothing more than desperation on the subject. You all don't have anything to come back with, so you act, well, like a girl
Well, it seems everyone here thinks you are a right royal pillock, so please, stew in your own juice.
gcthomas
New member
You combined two unrelated sentences to imply that the subject of the first was what was being referred to in the second. It was either a mistake or a dishonest representation. You seem to deny it was a mistake, so that makes you a liar. Again.
Come on, you keep posting falsehoods, and even your justifying links seem to go against you (don't you ever read what you link to first?!!)
No, but you are if you believe it. Like I said, people with your problem are easy to spot. They don't cite authority, utilize sustainable facts and rarely advance more than declaration in lieu of argument.
As someone who has been involved in thousands of cases relating to the disposition of children within fracturing marriages and lesser relationships, he's not telling you the truth. He may believe it, but he's wrong. There isn't a "male obstacle" but rather an objectively observable tendency by courts to involve both parents as integrally in the lives of their children as can be...that begins with the national trend and tendency of courts to prefer joint custody and liberal visitation rights. Also, judges routinely instruct parents going through with a divorce action on the perils of poisoning the well against a non-custodial parent, of the ongoing need to co-parent, regardless of the want of affection present in the moment, and of the consequences of playing children to work a hardship on the other party.
No, there's at least one thing worse.
Better to differ on doctrine where there is a salvific necessity and let God judge the rest
Cool story :idunno:
The reason being is because you all don't have a rebuttal, so the alternate route is to denounce me. You all have walls of lies that you close in on people, and picked someone who crashed them down :thumb:
gcthomas
New member
Hehe. I hope the climate is nice in your imaginary world. :wave:
It's standard (in custody cases) for parents to meet with an arbitrator in order to come up with a custody and visitation agreement that is most beneficial to the child/children. I have been through this twice and quite frankly, my ex-husband had to agree I was in a better position to have sole physical custody of our children. He had open visitation until they were adults without any problem. In the case of my youngest daughter, her father tried to pull a *Trump* with the arbitrator in the room and he ended up having his own lawyer tell him to either sign over sole physical and legal custody to me ... OR find another lawyer. He didn't fight for two reasons ... he never really wanted custody ... and he knew he would lose.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Um, no, it's simply a case of you being a complete tool who offers nothing that actually needs rebuttal. You're just some puffed up little crank in love with himself is all. You've had your head offered to you on a plate so often I doubt there's a neck left for it to even fit on.
Grow up, get a brain, and get some sort of life outside of 'beard growth' magazine etc...
:doh:
Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I'll tell you what: When you admit that Margaret Sanger was amongst other things a disgusting racist who wanted to murder human beings that she felt were "inferior", we can talk more about the finer points of ellipses.
From the same racist/eugenicist/Jew hating author and from the same book.
Quit being such a drama queen, Art Brain is getting jealous (he holds the title don't cha know).
I'll tell you what: When you admit that Margaret Sanger was amongst other things a disgusting racist who wanted to murder human beings that she felt were "inferior", we can talk more about the finer points of ellipses.
From the same racist/eugenicist/Jew hating author and from the same book.
Quit being such a drama queen, Art Brain is getting jealous (he holds the title don't cha know).
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Hmm, so pointing out that you consistently post false propaganda and erroneous 'source material' as "evidence" is now 'drama queen-esque'?
Damn it.
That title is mine gc thomas. Stop stealing my thunder...
:mmph: