Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibartik
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
No I was responding that he claimed it was empirical science. It is quite literally not even science. The only people that say that are pushers of successive breeding in human society, the absolute most hard core of racists.
If you want to know what is science, look up synthetic biology, the great thing about actual science is its actually all inclusive!
Edit: about that bit you thought I missed, based off his other posts, I thought he was saying that was a good thing.
All I'm saying is eugenics is not science its hand wavy victorian garbage experimentation.
|
The statement regarding eugenics was not artful and I apologize. I didn't say it was scientific or a science. When I said "empirically correct" I was trying to convey that eugenics sounds logical. Like of course if we only have the best people breed it should make the best babies. That sounds like it should work to people who don't fully understand the science behind it. But 'empirically' was definitely the wrong word to use here, especially since I was trying to mean something quite the opposite, like 'theoretically'. Or I should have just said it sounds correct. Which is why it had so many adherents back in the day. So yeah - I'm better with wordses usually.