Guest American Woman Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 I guess when you don't like the question you counter it with another one. Again, why a different policy for the Ultra Orthodox when they meet the same criteria as the Ethiopians? Here's a better question: was the same policy applied to all Blacks? Quote
Canuckistani Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 Here's a better question: was the same policy applied to all Blacks? Blacks who used aspirin were probably not targeted. But why not the same policy for the Hasidim? Quote
Guest Manny Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 So was segregation, wife-beating, and driving drunk. The National Post describes Canada's amnesia about the "Greatest Canadian" here: Canadians suffer from a “collective national amnesia” regarding Tommy Douglas’s support for eugenics, likely because they are reluctant to taint the medicare pioneer’s glowing image with unsavoury ideas, suggests a prominent McGill University physician in a new analysis. http://news.national.../tommy-douglas/ Canada's first PM Sir John A MacDonald was a known drunkard. He would sometimes appear drunk in public. On one famous occasion in PEI I believe, he appeared on the stage and immediately vomited. Then he turn to the crowd and said, "Forgive me, there are som many Liberals here it makes me sick." Yet he continued to be the PM after this display. Contrast it with the attitude that would have prevailed today, had the same thing happened. Quote
GostHacked Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 My comments were clearly in regards to democratic, enlightened nations. Right, it was so clear everyone here missed it. Do you honestly think that "the population" is not part of that? Of course it is. As I said, in "democratic, enlightened nations," wrongs such as this are generally corrected when brought to light. An enlightened nation would not have done this in the first place. The government was able to carry out the program for a length of time before the general population knew about it. The government had to change when the people said 'no more'. If the program was not known and the government managed to keep it under wraps, then you cannot claim to be enlightened. You can have an enlightened population, but if you do not have an enlightened government, then changes can only happen when the people get involved. Otherwise the government would have continued to carry out the program. Canada is no more enlightened in this matter. Quote
jbg Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 I am against eugenics. If that puts me on the other side Tf the table from you then I am ok with that. Tommy Douglas and I would see eye to eye on only a few issues. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 Canada's first PM Sir John A MacDonald was a known drunkard. He would sometimes appear drunk in public. On one famous occasion in PEI I believe, he appeared on the stage and immediately vomited. Then he turn to the crowd and said, "Forgive me, there are som many Liberals here it makes me sick." Yet he continued to be the PM after this display. Contrast it with the attitude that would have prevailed today, had the same thing happened. I don't think MacDonald and Douglas ever met. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
DogOnPorch Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 Canada is no more enlightened in this matter. No sh*t. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgentaler Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest Manny Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 I don't think MacDonald and Douglas ever met. No the point is how prevailing attitudes, acceptible behaviour, morality change drastically over a few generations. Like I said earlier we can't fairly judge eugenicists by todays standards. they were bleieving what scientists were telling them, just as some people staunchly believe everything scientists say today without completely understanding it. Quote
GostHacked Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 Tommy Douglas and I would see eye to eye on only a few issues. But that one key point puts him on your side of the table not mine. I don't support eugenics programs. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) American Woman, on 30 January 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:My comments were clearly in regards to democratic, enlightened nations. Right, it was so clear everyone here missed it. So you speak for "everyone" now, do you? But just for fun, let's recap: Yep. It's wrong, and it's no longer being done, which seems to be the way these things go in democratic, enlightened nations - the wrongs get corrected. ...it's good to see that this will no longer be happening, which seems to be the end result of such wrong-doinigs in democratic, enlightened nations. My point is that non-democratic, non-enlightened countries don't change their behavior when they are "caught." Yet many nations, even when caught, go on doing the wrong thing. I realize that a lot of wrong-doing has gone on regarding the aboriginals, but I seriously doubt that it's still going on today - there would be way too many protests and way too much publicity. I'm sure Canada has learned from past mistakes, too; as I've said, democratic, enlightened nations have a tendency to do the right thing when this type of thing comes to light. It was clear. That you didn't get it speaks for you. An enlightened nation would not have done this in the first place. Bull. As I also clearly said, democratic, enlightened nations don't always do the right thing. "Enlightened" and "100% perfect 100% of the time" are two different things. No one, no nation, no matter how enlightened or democratic does the right thing 100% of the time. If they did, I wouldn't have had to make the observation that democratic, enlightened nations change this type of behavior when it is brought to light and that "there would be too much protest" in such nations if such wrong-doings were to continue. The government was able to carry out the program for a length of time before the general population knew about it. The government had to change when the people said 'no more'. If the program was not known and the government managed to keep it under wraps, then you cannot claim to be enlightened. THE PEOPLE are also part of the "democratic, enlightened nation." THE GENERAL POPULATION is part of the "democratic, enlightened nation." If the government "had to change when the people said no more," then it's a democratic, enlightened nation. You can have an enlightened population, but if you do not have an enlightened government, then changes can only happen when the people get involved. Otherwise the government would have continued to carry out the program. The people did get involved. Because Israel is a democratic, enlightened nation - which "the people" are a part of. Canada is no more enlightened in this matter. Really? How so? But for the record, I wasn't speaking of "this matter," but of "wrong doings." All wrong doings. In general. And how democratic, enlightened nations tend to change the behavior once it's brought to light. Edited January 30, 2013 by American Woman Quote
DogOnPorch Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) Edit: To AW... How does it feel to be John McCain, George W. Bush and Reinhard Heydrich all at once? (nudge,nudge...beyond hope) Edited January 30, 2013 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bud Posted January 30, 2013 Author Report Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) more info on the enlightened country and its policy of forced birth control: Edited January 30, 2013 by bud Quote http://whoprofits.org/
Guest American Woman Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 Edit: To AW... How does it feel to be John McCain, George W. Bush and Reinhard Heydrich all at once? (nudge,nudge...beyond hope) It's pretty mind boggling! Quote
Black Dog Posted January 30, 2013 Report Posted January 30, 2013 Tommy Douglas and I would see eye to eye on only a few issues. Like eugenics, apparently. Quote
jbg Posted January 31, 2013 Report Posted January 31, 2013 Like eugenics, apparently. No. Support for Israel primarily. The CCF was actually the first party in the West to support the creation of a Jewish State in the Palestine Mandate. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Black Dog Posted January 31, 2013 Report Posted January 31, 2013 No. Support for Israel primarily. The CCF was actually the first party in the West to support the creation of a Jewish State in the Palestine Mandate. But you are quite clear in your sympathy for the policy of sterilizing undesirables. Quote
bud Posted February 3, 2013 Author Report Posted February 3, 2013 here is more example of what american woman speaks of when she calls israel an enlightened country: Revisions to Prawer Plan for Negev Bedouin expose the farce of law in Israel The latest revision to the Prawer Plan, which will eventually displace tens of thousands of Arab Bedouin from their ancestral land in the Negev (Naqab), in some ways improves its tone toward the Bedouin. But the Arab Bedouin community has resolutely rejected the Prawer Plan, and Benny Begin’s latest report reminds us succinctly that the law was never intended to be a friend to the oppressed. began developing a new city for military families in the same “shadow of danger.” Without specification, Begin mentions that in addition to Wadi el-Na’am, the Prawer Plan will also displace 3,000 other families (roughly 30,000 people), raising the government-acknowledged minimum number of displaced people from 30,000 to at least 44,000 people. http://972mag.com/revisions-to-prawer-plan-for-negev-bedouin-expose-the-farce-of-law-in-israel/65324/ Quote http://whoprofits.org/
jbg Posted February 3, 2013 Report Posted February 3, 2013 But you are quite clear in your sympathy for the policy of sterilizing undesirables. You obviously didn't read my second post on the subject.But if given the choice of Ethiopia and no Depo Privera and Israel and getting Depo Privera which alternative do you think these people would have selected? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
GostHacked Posted February 3, 2013 Report Posted February 3, 2013 You obviously didn't read my second post on the subject. But if given the choice of Ethiopia and no Depo Privera and Israel and getting Depo Privera which alternative do you think these people would have selected? I am sure they would not have picked eugenics if they knew that was going to happen to them. Quote
bud Posted February 3, 2013 Author Report Posted February 3, 2013 You obviously didn't read my second post on the subject. But if given the choice of Ethiopia and no Depo Privera and Israel and getting Depo Privera which alternative do you think these people would have selected? take it or leave it, ethiopians? you drip with racist and bigoted ideas. Quote http://whoprofits.org/
Guest American Woman Posted February 3, 2013 Report Posted February 3, 2013 When did "birth control" turn into "sterilization?" There is a big difference between the two. Quote
bud Posted February 4, 2013 Author Report Posted February 4, 2013 When did "birth control" turn into "sterilization?" There is a big difference between the two. a good point. just like there is a difference between raping and killing. Quote http://whoprofits.org/
DogOnPorch Posted February 4, 2013 Report Posted February 4, 2013 a good point. just like there is a difference between raping and killing. Question: Are you for or against women having birth control? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Canuckistani Posted February 4, 2013 Report Posted February 4, 2013 Question: Are you for or against women having birth control? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 4, 2013 Report Posted February 4, 2013 He's the one comparing birth control to rape. So, yes, I'd like to know if bud is for or against women being allowed access to birth control. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.