Jurate:

...not because this is a topic that particularly interests Sedgie, any more than Margaret Sanger is a topic that interests Sedgie.

Jurate, I don't know that this is a really fair assessment of how Sedgie (or anyone else) broaches a controversial topic.  Do they really have to have prior long-standing interest?  Or is it sufficient that a web-search catches their eye ... and their interest?

The Sanger thread is a pretty good example.  Fact is, *I* didn't really know (or recall) who Margaret Sanger was.  I'm familiar with the eugenics movement from some other research -- along with the infamous case of Buck v. Bell -- but otherwise, I didn't know anything about Ms. Sanger.  And I didn't know that she was the founder of Planned Parenthood.

(although I'm familiar with the contraceptive case of Griswold v. Connecticut, and it's successor, Roe v. Wade)

For me, that just spun off a bunch of information that captured my attention. 

Sort of the same thing with the (ugly!) concept of female genital mutilation.  Lillian actually broached the topic -- and Sedgie ran with it -- but this time it looked like HE was the one who was shocked ... and appalled.  And he posted about it .... with a heavy warning about the link.

The content of that link was exceptionally graphic ... but it provided a lot of detailed information (from the American Association of Pediatrics, no less) of which I was unaware.

Sedgie likes to shock, tweak and get a rise out of people (like someone else we know).

But there's an extent to which that kind of activity can raise a lot of awareness about things, however controversial,  that will often just get swept under the table.

I can't say it's a bad thing.

Certainly not for me -- this is one of the ways I learn things.



Nice little hackle farm you've got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.
~Reph
Last Edited By: RHajmand 05/25/10 1:42 PM. Edited 1 times.