The unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit"...

Margaret Sanger (famous atheist and humanist) said...

The unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization.


Can the atheists and humanists on this forum tell us...

1) Do you agree with Margaret Sanger that the high birth rate of the "unfit" is the greatest present menace to civilization?

2) If you agree with her, then what is your definition/criteria for "unfit" humans?



Margaret Sanger defines the "unfit" as "the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken".

But I would like to know your personal definition.
 
Last edited:

Temujin

Well-known member
Margaret Sanger (famous atheist and humanist) said...

...the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization...


Can the atheists and humanists on this forum tell us...

1) Do you agree with Margaret Sanger that the high birth rate of the "unfit" is the greatest present menace to civilization?

2) If you agree with her, then what is your definition/criteria for "unfit" humans?



Margaret Sanger defines the "unfit" as "the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken".

But I would like to know your personal definition.
No I don't agree with her. There is no such thing as an unfit human being. Some people are disabled, some have mental health issues, some are recidivist criminals. All are human beings and entitled to equal respect and dignity.

Sanger is an American phenomenon. She no more represents all atheists than Hitler represents all Christians. Just posing the question in the OP is not just offensive, but indicates a total misunderstanding of what atheists and humanists think.
 
Sanger is an American phenomenon. She no more represents all atheists than Hitler represents all Christians. Just posing the question in the OP is not just offensive, but indicates a total misunderstanding of what atheists and humanists think.

Margaret Sanger must represent a majority of humanists since she was awarded Humanist of the Year by the American Humanist Association in 1957.

So why would it be offensive to atheists and humanists to quote a former Humanist of the Year?


P.S.

The Humanist of the Year award was established in 1953 to recognize a person of national or international reputation who, through the application of humanist values, has made a significant contribution to the improvement of the human condition. Selection of the awardee is based on research derived from biographical data, writings, studies, and contributions to humanity. Nominations are accepted from AHA members and considered by the AHA Board Awards Committee.

So that means a majority of the AHA Board Awards Committee must have thought she was the most significant humanist in 1957.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Margaret Sanger must represent a majority of humanists since she was awarded Humanist of the Year by the American Humanist Association in 1957.

So why would it be offensive to atheists and humanists to quote a former Humanist of the Year?
I don't give a fig what American humanists thought in 1957. This humanist in 2020 thinks it's offensive, as will the vast majority of humanists. Hitler came to power with a popular vote in an election in 1933. Do you think that means you can legitimately suggest that all Germans in 2020 are Nazis?
 
I don't give a fig what American humanists thought in 1957. This humanist in 2020 thinks it's offensive, as will the vast majority of humanists. Hitler came to power with a popular vote in an election in 1933. Do you think that means you can legitimately suggest that all Germans in 2020 are Nazis?

It means that a majority of Germans in 1933 voted for Hitler.

Likewise, a majority of American humanists in 1957 voted to award Margaret Sanger as Humanist of the Year.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
It means that a majority of Germans in 1934 voted for Hitler.

Likewise, a majority of humanists in 1957 voted to award Margaret Sanger as Humanist of the Year.
So, who is your OP aimed at? Atheists and humanists here in the 21st century. Or American humanists of 1957? I would like to ask them why they did this as well, but I fancy we have both missed the chance.

Do you think it is reasonable to use an extreme view from over 60 years ago as a device to attack atheists and humanists alive now? If not, what is the point of your OP?
 
So, who is your OP aimed at? Atheists and humanists here in the 21st century. Or American humanists of 1957? I would like to ask them why they did this as well, but I fancy we have both missed the chance.

Do you think it is reasonable to use an extreme view from over 60 years ago as a device to attack atheists and humanists alive now? If not, what is the point of your OP?

The point of the OP is a question with a followup question.


Can the atheists and humanists on this forum tell us...

1) Do you agree with Margaret Sanger that the high birth rate of the "unfit" is the greatest present menace to civilization?

2) If you agree with her, then what is your definition/criteria for "unfit" humans?


You gave your answer. Now I would like to hear from the rest of the atheists and humanists on this forum.
 
Last edited:
And how would asking you if you agree with a statement by a former Humanist of the Year be "attacking you"?

All you have to do is say No.

Which you did.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
The point of the OP is a question with a followup question.


Can the atheists and humanists on this forum tell us...

1) Do you agree with Margaret Sanger that the high birth rate of the "unfit" is the greatest present menace to civilization?

2) If you agree with her, then what is your definition/criteria for "unfit" humans?


You gave your answer. Now I would like to hear from the rest of the atheists and humanists on this forum.
The attack is the apparent assumption that anyone will say yes. If there is a flood of such people, then I'll back off, but it is akin to asking all Christians if they approve of child abuse on the grounds that a Christian couple were recently discovered to be abusing their children.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
No I don't agree with her. There is no such thing as an unfit human being. Some people are disabled, some have mental health issues, some are recidivist criminals. All are human beings and entitled to equal respect and dignity.

Sanger is an American phenomenon. She no more represents all atheists than Hitler represents all Christians. Just posing the question in the OP is not just offensive, but indicates a total misunderstanding of what atheists and humanists think.
Margaret Sanger (famous atheist and humanist) said...

The unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization.


Can the atheists and humanists on this forum tell us...

1) Do you agree with Margaret Sanger that the high birth rate of the "unfit" is the greatest present menace to civilization?

2) If you agree with her, then what is your definition/criteria for "unfit" humans?



Margaret Sanger defines the "unfit" as "the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken".

But I would like to know your personal definition.
Sanger labeled those she despised as "unwanted weeds"
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
No I don't agree with her. There is no such thing as an unfit human being. Some people are disabled, some have mental health issues, some are recidivist criminals. All are human beings and entitled to equal respect and dignity.

Sanger is an American phenomenon. She no more represents all atheists than Hitler represents all Christians. Just posing the question in the OP is not just offensive, but indicates a total misunderstanding of what atheists and humanists think.

Of course you are an advocate of darwinism.

Sanger was the mother of eugenics and Darwin the father of eugenics.

“My firm conviction is that if wide-spread Eugenic reforms are not adopted during the next hundred years or so, our Western Civilization is inevitably destined to such a slow and gradual decay as that which has been experienced in the past by every great ancient civilization. The size and the importance of the United States throws on you a special responsibility in your endeavours to safeguard the future of our race. Those who are attending your Congress will be aiding in this endeavour, and though you will gain no thanks from your own generation, posterity will, I believe, learn to realize the great dept it owes to all the workers in this field.”
Leonard Darwin

Threatened by the "savage races" Darwin wished exterminated.

Abortion industry is devoted to exterminate "unwanted weeds"
Racist industry.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
So, who is your OP aimed at? Atheists and humanists here in the 21st century. Or American humanists of 1957? I would like to ask them why they did this as well, but I fancy we have both missed the chance.

Do you think it is reasonable to use an extreme view from over 60 years ago as a device to attack atheists and humanists alive now? If not, what is the point of your OP?

Since you said you were a jailer, have you reported the attacks to the police?
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
Margaret Sanger (famous atheist and humanist) said...

The unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization.


Can the atheists and humanists on this forum tell us...

1) Do you agree with Margaret Sanger that the high birth rate of the "unfit" is the greatest present menace to civilization?

2) If you agree with her, then what is your definition/criteria for "unfit" humans?



Margaret Sanger defines the "unfit" as "the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken".

But I would like to know your personal definition.
Sanger was raised in an age of eugenic thought. She was tainted by this wrongheaded idea that there are "fit" and "unfit" people. And not just in terms of the ability to climb a flight of stairs.
She was raised with the whole Calvinist idea of poverty being a moral failing. An idea long since refuted.

1) This atheist does NOT agree with Sanger.
2) This atheist does NOT cling to outdated nonsense that was refuted decades ago
.

The unfit are those who are unable to climb a flight of stairs, despite a lack of physical handicap or disability.
And this in NOT an innate condition. Just a lack of exercise. Yesterday's "unfit" person, can become today's "fit" person, by engaging in more physical activity, and eating a more healthy diet.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
It means that a majority of Germans in 1933 voted for Hitler.

Likewise, a majority of American humanists in 1957 voted to award Margaret Sanger as Humanist of the Year.
That word... "American"... says a lot. As does the year "1957". How many cars with tailfins to you see?
 
That word... "American"... says a lot. As does the year "1957". How many cars with tailfins to you see?


Are you suggesting that the morality of American atheists differs from the morality of atheists from other countries?

If Yes, how so?


Are you suggesting that the morality of atheists in 1957 differs from the morality of atheists today?

If Yes, how so?


And if Yes, did morality itself change, or did the American atheists from 1957 just not know the correct morality?
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Sanger was raised in an age of eugenic thought. She was tainted by this wrongheaded idea that there are "fit" and "unfit" people. And not just in terms of the ability to climb a flight of stairs.
She was raised with the whole Calvinist idea of poverty being a moral failing. An idea long since refuted.

1) This atheist does NOT agree with Sanger.
2) This atheist does NOT cling to outdated nonsense that was refuted decades ago
.

The unfit are those who are unable to climb a flight of stairs, despite a lack of physical handicap or disability.
And this in NOT an innate condition. Just a lack of exercise. Yesterday's "unfit" person, can become today's "fit" person, by engaging in more physical activity, and eating a more healthy diet.
Excuses
She was an avid Darwinist. Like you.

I did 22 miles on a mountain bike before Thanksgiving dinner time today. are you unfit?

Tomorrow 34 mile route.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
Are you suggesting that the morality of American atheists differs from the morality of atheists from other countries?

If Yes, how so?


Are you suggesting that the morality of atheists in 1957 differs from the morality of atheists today?

If Yes, how so?


And if Yes, did morality itself change, or did the American atheists from 1957 just not know the correct morality?
No. I'm STATING FROM THE OUTSET that in the 1950s, America had some very crazy ideas.

See above.

No. again.... I'm STATING FROM THE OUTSET that in the 1950s, America had some very crazy ideas.

And again... see above


See above.
And morality did change. Notice that racial segregation was scrapped. Jim Crow was taken off the law books in 1964.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
Excuses
She was an avid Darwinist. Like you.

I did 22 miles on a mountain bike before Thanksgiving dinner time today. are you unfit?

Tomorrow 34 mile route.
What about them? Are you running out?
So she was not a Darwinist at all. Got it.

BULL! You sat at your computer, and posted drivel. Not particularly. For my age and class, I'm in pretty good shape.

... that you will not participate in.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Margaret Sanger (famous atheist and humanist) said...

The unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization.


Can the atheists and humanists on this forum tell us...

1) Do you agree with Margaret Sanger that the high birth rate of the "unfit" is the greatest present menace to civilization?

2) If you agree with her, then what is your definition/criteria for "unfit" humans?



Margaret Sanger defines the "unfit" as "the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken".

But I would like to know your personal definition.
Famous Christian magistrate William Stoughton, under the direction of the following clergy:

John Hale, of Beverly, Massachusetts
Cotton Mather, of Boston, Massachusetts
Increase Mather, of Boston, Massachusetts
Nicholas Noyes, of Salem
Samuel Parris, of Salem Village – father of Betty Parris and uncle of Abigail Williams
Samuel Willard, of Groton, and Boston (both Massachusetts)
Thomas Barnard, of Andover, Massachusetts [6]

following the edict of biblical scripture "thou shall not suffer a witch to live" presided over the executions of the following:

Bridget Bishop (née Playfer; executed June 10, 1692)
Rebecca Nurse (née Towne; July 19, 1692)
Sarah Good (formerly Poole, née Solart; July 19, 1692)
Elizabeth Howe (née Jackson; July 19, 1692)
Susannah Martin (née North; July 19, 1692)
Sarah Wildes (née Averill; July 19, 1692)
George Burroughs (August 19, 1692)
George Jacobs Sr. (August 19, 1692)
Martha Carrier (née Allen; August 19, 1692)
John Proctor (August 19, 1692)
John Willard (August 19, 1692)
Martha Corey (September 22, 1692; wife of Giles Corey)
Mary Eastey (née Towne; September 22, 1692)
Mary Parker (née Ayer; September 22, 1692)
Alice Parker (September 22, 1692)
Ann Pudeator (September 22, 1692)
Wilmot Redd (September 22, 1692)
Margaret Scott (September 22, 1692)
Samuel Wardwell Sr. (September 22, 1692)
Giles Corey (September 19, 1692) - Pressed to death.
Died in prison
Ann Foster (née Alcock) – died in custody in December 1692
Sarah Osborne - died in prison May 29, 1692, at age 49

... all convicted of witchcraft and either, hung, crushed or died in prison.

... oh.... and 2 dogs.

Question for Yahchristian. Do you agree with the plenary inspiration of the Bible and the venerable Christian clergy and representatives of Jesus's love and mercy on this point?
 
Last edited:
Top