|
Post by matisse on Aug 15, 2015 8:55:07 GMT -5
Interesting, Ilylo refers to arrogance on the home page of TLT. An aunt of mine who was introduced to the 2x2's when she married my B&R but unprofessing uncle, observed, 'The people I have encountered have an odd mix of naivite and arrogance.' I mention this to illustrate that not everyone who looks at the group from the outside sees it in a positive light. In my aunt's case, she had never visited TLT, or any of the other so-called "activist exe" sites, yet her take on the group was in line with Ilylo. I have fond memories of Convention, big get-togethers with softball games, a huge network of extended family and friends... I don't miss what I have come to see as a culture that supports secrecy and deceit, with high level leaders who seem unwilling to call it out. I don't miss believing that I was among God's only true people on earth. To speak to your question, if someone truly believes that a group is built on lies and that the people in it are in danger, why would they say anything positive? Think about the thread you started about Planned Parenthood. I don't think you have said one positive thing about the organization. Why is that? Very interesting question. I really haden't considered Planned Parenthood until the investigative videos came out. And the more I look the worse it gets, for instance check out this site; blackgenocide.org/planned.html<snip> What does Planned Parenthood offer that isn't available elsewhere in the healthcare industry? I suppose any further discussion about Planned Parenthood belongs on the thread you referred to; professing.proboards.com/thread/23194/selling-aborted-baby-parts-videoYou will find an almost endless trove of misleading material about Planned Parenthood. FACT CHECK: Was Planned Parenthood Started To 'Control' The Black Population?My point is that Planned Parenthood has helped many men and women and children over the years. The founders were early pioneers in making it possible for women to have some control over the number and timing of their children. That was back when the norm was for women to have upwards of 18 or more pregnancies if they managed to survive their fertile years. There are plenty of examples of Planned Parenthood being a positive force in communities across its history, yet you seem incapable of posting even one positive thing about the organization. Why is that? You see, it's pretty easy to behave like an "activist exe"!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 15, 2015 9:06:53 GMT -5
You will find an almost endless trove of misleading material about Planned Parenthood. FACT CHECK: Was Planned Parenthood Started To 'Control' The Black Population?My point is that Planned Parenthood has helped many men and women and children over the years. The founders were early pioneers in making it possible for women to have some control over the number and timing of their children. That was back when the norm was for women to have upwards of 18 or more pregnancies if they managed to survive their fertile years. There are plenty of examples of Planned Parenthood being a positive force in communities across its history, yet you seem incapable of posting even one positive thing about the organization. Why is that? You see, it's pretty easy to behave like an "activist exe"! I read that pathetic so-called "fact check" article prior to you posting it. Margret Sanger - the founder of planned parenthood - is easily researched and there no need to be accept merely being spoon fed by Planned Parenthood apologists. People interested in Planned Parenthood's roots owe it to themselves to read primary source material NOT what a Planned Parenthood spokesperson has to say to NPR. All Sanger's work is online and very easy to find. It's is absolutely stunning to read. I posted one article Sanger wrote on the Planned Parenthood thread. Here's a little tidbit; Sounds like she is making the case for a concentration camp. Not surprising since her "Birth Control Review" published an article by Dr. Ernst Rubin, who was Hitler's director of genetic sterilization and a founder of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 15, 2015 9:12:45 GMT -5
You will find an almost endless trove of misleading material about Planned Parenthood. FACT CHECK: Was Planned Parenthood Started To 'Control' The Black Population?My point is that Planned Parenthood has helped many men and women and children over the years. The founders were early pioneers in making it possible for women to have some control over the number and timing of their children. That was back when the norm was for women to have upwards of 18 or more pregnancies if they managed to survive their fertile years. There are plenty of examples of Planned Parenthood being a positive force in communities across its history, yet you seem incapable of posting even one positive thing about the organization. Why is that? You see, it's pretty easy to behave like an "activist exe"! I read that pathetic so called "fact check" article. Margret Sanger - the founder of planned parenthood - is easily researched and there no need to be accept merely being spoon fed by Planned Parenthood apologists. All Sanger's work is online. It's is absolutely stunning to read. I posted one article on the Planned Parenthood thread. I believe many of these "stunning" attitudes were consistent with the times (1931), Jesse. Is it possible for you to acknowledge the point I have made about "activist exe" sites? So far, you have provided a "stunning" illustration of how easy it is to be strictly negative about an organization!!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 15, 2015 9:19:07 GMT -5
I read that pathetic so called "fact check" article. Margret Sanger - the founder of planned parenthood - is easily researched and there no need to be accept merely being spoon fed by Planned Parenthood apologists. All Sanger's work is online. It's is absolutely stunning to read. I posted one article on the Planned Parenthood thread. I believe many of these "stunning" attitudes were consistent with the times (1931), Jesse. Is it possible for you to acknowledge the point I have made about "activist exe" sites? That thinking was consistent with the times? Who else thought that way? Thankfully there were those then who's thinking it wasn't consistent with. Thankfully those who didn't think that way were the majority and prevailed. Planned Parenthood supporters shouldn't have a problem with accepting the fact Margret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood. I'm quoting what the founder herself wrote, not what "activist exe sites" are saying about it.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 15, 2015 9:24:39 GMT -5
I believe many of these "stunning" attitudes were consistent with the times (1931), Jesse. Is it possible for you to acknowledge the point I have made about "activist exe" sites? That thinking was consistent with the times? Who else thought that way? Thankfully there were those then who's thinking it wasn't consistent with. Planned Parenthood supporters shouldn't have a problem with accepting the fact Margret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood. I'm quoting the founder herself wrote, not what "activist exe sites" are saying about it. And you continue to have only negative things to say about the organization! You and Ilylo have something in common!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 15, 2015 9:32:52 GMT -5
That thinking was consistent with the times? Who else thought that way? Thankfully there were those then who's thinking it wasn't consistent with. Planned Parenthood supporters shouldn't have a problem with accepting the fact Margret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood. I'm quoting the founder herself wrote, not what "activist exe sites" are saying about it. And you continue to have only negative things to say about the organization! You and Ilylo have something in common! I'll bet that ilylo would have the same thoughts about Margret Sanger/Planned Parenthood as I do. So yes we would have that in common.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 15, 2015 9:34:19 GMT -5
That thinking was consistent with the times? Who else thought that way? Thankfully there were those then who's thinking it wasn't consistent with. Planned Parenthood supporters shouldn't have a problem with accepting the fact Margret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood. I'm quoting the founder herself wrote, not what "activist exe sites" are saying about it. And you continue to have only negative things to say about the organization! You and Ilylo have something in common! I asked but you didn't answer - what does Planned Parenthood provide that isn't available elsewhere in the health care industry?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 15, 2015 9:37:06 GMT -5
And you continue to have only negative things to say about the organization! You and Ilylo have something in common! I'll bet that ilylo would have the same thoughts about Margret Sanger/Planned Parenthood as I do. So yes we would have that in common. :) You continue to sidestep my point.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 15, 2015 9:44:01 GMT -5
And you continue to have only negative things to say about the organization! You and Ilylo have something in common! I asked but you didn't answer - what does Planned Parenthood provide that isn't available elsewhere in the health care industry? It depends on what part of the country you are talking about. But your question is yet another sidestep on your part. If you think some of the services Planned Parenthood provides are good, then why not just say it?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 15, 2015 10:53:48 GMT -5
I'll bet that ilylo would have the same thoughts about Margret Sanger/Planned Parenthood as I do. So yes we would have that in common. You continue to sidestep my point. Yes there is an element of similarity. that point is interesting. But I am not publishing a single issue website about only the bad things about Planned Parenthood. I don't know what services Planned Parenthood offers that might be considered good and how they balance with what some consider to be bad. The videos are single issue videos about only the bad. Which is why I wanted to look into the roots of Planned Parenthood and it's founder Margaret Sanger. As anyone can see some of those roots are pretty ugly.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 15, 2015 11:12:06 GMT -5
You continue to sidestep my point. Yes there is an element of similarity. that point is interesting. But I am not publishing a single issue website about only the bad things about Planned Parenthood. Oh, right. You are simply quoting from websites that only have bad things to say about Planned Parenthood and labeling the Fact Check article I provided "pathetic"! It sounds like you don't know that much about Planned Parenthood. It also sounds like you don't know that much about U.S. History. Have you ever looked into the roots of Ford Motor Company, for example, and examined the political beliefs of Henry Ford?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 15, 2015 11:15:53 GMT -5
Yes there is an element of similarity. that point is interesting. But I am not publishing a single issue website about only the bad things about Planned Parenthood. Oh, right. You are simply quoting from websites that only have bad things to say about Planned Parenthood! It sounds like you don't know that much about Planned Parenthood. It also sounds like you don't know that much about U.S. History. Have you ever looked into the roots of Ford Motor Company and examined the political beliefs of Henry Ford? I quoted Margret Sanger directly NOT "from websites that only have bad things to say about Planned Parenthood". Other than that I'm pretty ignorant about everything else.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 15, 2015 11:33:47 GMT -5
Oh, right. You are simply quoting from websites that only have bad things to say about Planned Parenthood! It sounds like you don't know that much about Planned Parenthood. It also sounds like you don't know that much about U.S. History. Have you ever looked into the roots of Ford Motor Company and examined the political beliefs of Henry Ford? I quoted Margret Sanger directly NOT "from websites that only have bad things to say about Planned Parenthood". True, though not on this thread. You also have quoted heavily from anti-Planned Parenthood sources. Yes. You might want to become more familiar with prevalent attitudes in the U.S. during the first part of the 20th Century before you say much more about Margaret Sanger.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 15, 2015 11:47:05 GMT -5
Eugenics was not a bad word until following WWII and its connection with the ideals of the Nazi government. Eugenics in the United States.Right or wrong it is disingenuous to compare what was said almost a century ago and pretend that nothing has changed since that time. Her views, like so many others, changed over time with the exception of providing birth control to people. Remember, this was at a time when speaking about birth control was an arrestable offense. So why continue to quote writings from decades ago that are no longer relevant?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 15, 2015 12:58:47 GMT -5
Eugenics was the prevailing attitude and consensus in the US in the early 30s?
Do you have links to Sanger publishing reversals of what she said in the 20s and 30?
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Aug 15, 2015 14:42:01 GMT -5
Interesting, Ilylo refers to arrogance on the home page of TLT. An aunt of mine who was introduced to the 2x2's when she married my B&R but unprofessing uncle, observed, 'The people I have encountered have an odd mix of naivite and arrogance.' I mention this to illustrate that not everyone who looks at the group from the outside sees it in a positive light. In my aunt's case, she had never visited TLT, or any of the other so-called "activist exe" sites, yet her take on the group was in line with Ilylo. Thats interesting because we had several outsider relatives and friends over the years - including long before the web was around or the books were around - say nearly the same thing after attending a few meetings. One came away with the clear message that the F&W's believe everyone but them is going to hell and another thought that it was focused on being sad and another thought what they observed was a biblically ignorant and sad and proud and unfriendly bunch who were focused on staying that way instead of rejoicing in hope or learning. I can't think of any that had the slightest desire to followup with the workers and gospel meetings in their areas after they returned home.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Aug 15, 2015 14:51:26 GMT -5
Ross, you condemn F&W for inconsistencies in doctrine yet you won't acknowledge the inconsistencies (and unbiblical doctrine) in the Anglican Communion. I think one difference is that the anglicans talk and discuss about the inconsistencies and the F&W's don't. Not all anglicans are as frothy as the american branch and when there are issues it can take time for tens of thousands of people to discuss and resolve such things but still they are talking about those things. Quickest way to end a conversation among F&W's is to disagree with something a worker said - often just talking about the bible at all will have people changing the subject or suddenly finding an appointment they need to get to and thats not hearsay but observation and any observant person gets the message real quick that there are lots of stuff that its not our place to bring up or even think about. Doctrine should be important and open to discuss and to answer questions and to examine for a fellowship that really thinks it has the truth and that its a matter of eternal fate but even when things go bad here on earth like CSA or incest or mental illness or financial abuse or a worker or elder who is sleeping around or any of the rest - its not to be discussed or be honest about for the sake of the kingdom and is often dismissed and shut-down with things like that 'the way is perfect even if some of the people aren't' line.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 15, 2015 15:01:27 GMT -5
Eugenics was the prevailing attitude and consensus in the US in the early 30s? Did you read the linked material about eugenics in the United States that rational provided? Including "reversals" of the work she did in collaboration with W.E.B. DuBois and other leaders within the black community who also believed in eugenics at the time? Sanger died in 1966, almost 50 years ago. That same year, Martin Luther King, Jr. said of her, "There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts....Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her." King, Martin Luther Jr. (1966, May 5). "Family Planning — A Special and Urgent Concern." Acceptance speech upon receiving the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Margaret Sanger Award.Sanger never supported racially-based eugenics. There is a mess of misinformation on the internet. Fact Sheet - Opposition ClaimsAnd nearly 50 years after Sanger's death, what relevance do her views - good, bad or ugly - have to do with whether or not Planned Parenthood should exist today?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 15, 2015 15:09:33 GMT -5
Ross, you condemn F&W for inconsistencies in doctrine yet you won't acknowledge the inconsistencies (and unbiblical doctrine) in the Anglican Communion. I think one difference is that the anglicans talk and discuss about the inconsistencies and the F&W's don't. Not all anglicans are as frothy as the american branch and when there are issues it can take time for tens of thousands of people to discuss and resolve such things but still they are talking about those things. Quickest way to end a conversation among F&W's is to disagree with something a worker said - often just talking about the bible at all will have people changing the subject or suddenly finding an appointment they need to get to and thats not hearsay but observation and any observant person gets the message real quick that there are lots of stuff that its not our place to bring up or even think about. Doctrine should be important and open to discuss and to answer questions and to examine for a fellowship that really thinks it has the truth and that its a matter of eternal fate but even when things go bad here on earth like CSA or incest or mental illness or financial abuse or a worker or elder who is sleeping around or any of the rest - its not to be discussed or be honest about for the sake of the kingdom and is often dismissed and shut-down with things like that 'the way is perfect even if some of the people aren't' line. Exactly! There is an illusion of harmony within the 2x2's. This is something that insiders I know point to with great pride, and with conviction that this is a sign that they have what is right. But at what cost does this "harmony" come? People cannot talk freely about any number of topics, and those who have "inconvenient" information about the group or its leaders and who are not willing to keep silent better be prepared to have their credibility smeared and to find themselves on the outside looking in. At some point, one might want to ask "for the sake of whose kingdom" are these things done?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 15, 2015 15:22:40 GMT -5
We're not speaking past each other -- you're not answering my question. Let me ask it this way. Is abuse an acceptable reason to leave the 2x2s? The question calls for a yes or no answer. Then if you want to explain the answer, you can't use the word "but". Yes. But, many folks can cope with a bit of abuse and may choose to stay. You used the word "but" -- that negates your "yes" answer.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 15, 2015 15:27:20 GMT -5
Eugenics was the prevailing attitude and consensus in the US in the early 30s? Sanger never supported racially-based eugenics. There is a mess of misinformation on the internet. Sanger's own words are not misinformation; She says "the government would pension" certainclasses of people. We are there with the generations on welfare. They aren't on government farms though.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 15, 2015 15:33:59 GMT -5
Sanger never supported racially-based eugenics. There is a mess of misinformation on the internet. Sanger's own words are not misinformation; She says "the government would pension" certainclasses of people. We are there with the generations on welfare. They aren't on government farms though. Nobody is arguing that she didn't subscribe to some aspects of eugenics, as did many prominent people back then. If her views were, and remained so reprehensible, why do you suppose Martin Luther King, Jr. would sing her praises in 1966? Have you read the article that rational provided the link to yet??? What relevance do the views of someone who died almost 50 years ago have to whether or not Planned Parenthood should continue to exist today?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 15, 2015 16:03:32 GMT -5
We've been speaking past each other. If people are not happy with F&W's doctrine, then they can find a church that fits better with their beliefs and we can part friends. There's no need for us to change doctrine to suit the disaffected, or wring our hands over folks who join a church that ordains openly gay ministers and baptizes infants and dresses it's clergy in frocks. However, if people leave because they've been abused then that's something to be concerned about. F&W's need to empathise with the abused and deal with the root causes of the abuse. We're not speaking past each other -- you're not answering my question. Let me ask it this way. Is abuse an acceptable reason to leave the 2x2s? The question calls for a yes or no answer. Then if you want to explain the answer, you can't use the word "but". I'm always wary of demands for yes or no answers. I see that as a tool of bullies, and I would expect better of a man as skilled in languages as you are. It's not up to me to call whether people's reasons for leaving are acceptable to them. If you're asking whether it's acceptable to me that people leave for the reason of abuse, the answer is: 1. Yes, people should be free to leave an abusive situation and I wouldn't judge them as wrong for leaving. 2. No, it's not acceptable to me that abuse occurs in the fellowship. If that's not clear, ask again and I'll try to explain it differently.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 15, 2015 17:48:40 GMT -5
Sanger's own words are not misinformation; Jesse_Lackman, but if you edit the words as you have it does become misinformation. You are as misleading as the producers of the edited videos you have been posting. Actually she said: (e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
You have completely missed the point. There would be no additional generations. The state would care for these individuals, as they already were, until they died.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 15, 2015 18:11:52 GMT -5
Eugenics was the prevailing attitude and consensus in the US in the early 30s? It was. You could look here.I personally have not looked. What she said was very much in like with what the country was thinking. In fact, some states still offer sterilization. Additional information
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 15, 2015 18:32:30 GMT -5
I think the point that is seemingly being missed is that when someone passionately disagrees with something or a group they are unlikely to post any positives about the subject or group and actually just post things that are biased towards their passionate belief whether it is right or not. This is likely why we also see exes rarely say anything positive about the group they passionately belief is wrong and dangerous and look for and read from sites that support that position. It seems to be the nature of people. We see it here on this thread by those who are against planned parenthood. Obviously there must be good aspects of the group, but because it holds negative connotations for some, none of the positives are being pointed out.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 15, 2015 18:40:02 GMT -5
This is what I find interesting: Ross can excuse the foibles of the Anglican churches elsewhere because it's NIMOBY, but if any from the fellowship say that things reported here are unknown in our region, we are told, That's no excuse. And then Margaret Sanger is excused because she died 50 years ago and MAY HAVE adjusted her thinking in her last 30+ years. Would that work to get George Walker, Jack Carroll, Willie Jamison, etc. off the hook? I think not.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 15, 2015 19:07:00 GMT -5
This is what I find interesting: Ross can excuse the foibles of the Anglican churches elsewhere because it's NIMOBY, but if any from the fellowship say that things reported here are unknown in our region, we are told, That's no excuse. And then Margaret Sanger is excused because she died 50 years ago and MAY HAVE adjusted her thinking in her last 30+ years. Would that work to get George Walker, Jack Carroll, Willie Jamison, etc. off the hook? I think not. What I find disturbing actually is how people here are saying they would condemn this and that if their church supported it. That is what I find the hardest to accept and think is the most dangerous aspect of believing and following the bible. It makes believers more justified in their condemnation of groups they don't agree with because a couple of verses in the bible happens to condemn them. Yet there are many things that get ignored because they don't agree they should be rules anymore. Condemnation by cherry picking.
|
|