View Single Post
Old 05-14-2009, 04:58 AM   #27
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos View Post
She made some statement somewhere along the way that weren't unmistakeably eugenic, therefore she really wasn't a eugencist. This is your argument?
no, not at all, the point being the work done earlier had no eugenic ideals in them.

you seem to believe that somewhere I've said she wasn't a eugenist, which is not the case in her later years.

and clearly your argument is that due to sanger (and quite a few of the people in the 1920s) embracing eugenics later in life, all their work decades earlier must have been based on that philosophy.

retroactive thought? that's a new concept.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote