-
Well, he does go on to say that he deplores it and it's bad. Denying that human genetics theoretically could change would be such a step that it could embolden those people in a "look at the libs denying obvious facts" type way.
Killing babies would solve Climate Change by reducing the demand on the planets resources.
But wait, I'm not saying we should actually kill all babies. I'm just stating a fact.
No one here is denying the fact that genetics can change, they are questioning his interpretation/application of the phrase "work", and anyone who thinks this equates to"look at the libs denying facts" is willfully misinterpreting things, and is unlikely to actually change their opinion
(note I'm not saying you are thinking that - just that modifying your behavior to try and limit that interpretation will never lead anywhere because the people who hold that view fundamentally don't want to change it)
branwen-
just that modifying your behavior to try and limit that interpretation will never lead anywhere because the people who hold that view fundamentally don't want to change it
Yeah, ultimately (in a small group of people) Nazis gonna Nazi. I guess I just find it bizarre that the gut reaction of many non-Nazis is also to read that tweet as support for Eugenics.
-
Killing babies would solve Climate Change by reducing the demand on the planets resources.
Lacks ambition. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2019/feb/great-dying-americas-disturbed-earths-climate
ffm
itsbruce
Very true, and that alone is a good counterargument. I think a lot of people are reading it in the worst possible way (i.e., eugenics = optimisation), whereas it could be read as eugenics = genetic drift/selective breeding. It's a bit worrying if people don't believe that human genes aren't mutable.
Well, he does go on to say that he deplores it and it's bad. Denying that human genetics theoretically could change would be such a step that it could embolden those people in a "look at the libs denying obvious facts" type way.