Difference between revisions of "Talk:Eugenics"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: Crimeney, you've got it all wrong again...I'll try to clean up the science part without disturbing your point, if you dont mind.~~~~) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Crimeney, you've got it all wrong again...I'll try to clean up the science part without disturbing your point, if you dont mind.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 00:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT) | Crimeney, you've got it all wrong again...I'll try to clean up the science part without disturbing your point, if you dont mind.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 00:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ok, Dawkin's letter shows NO approval for eugenics, just the opposite. Careful with the quote mining. Im not saying that no one in the world is a eugenecist, but chose the right ones. | ||
| + | Singer is interesting...he makes ethical arguments about the sanctity of life, and creats a spectrum of sanctity. His ideas can be offensive, but he clearly states that killing is bad, just some killing is bad in different ways. He does not, as far as I can tell, speak of eugenics at all. You might consider leaving him out and finding a better example.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 00:59, 27 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 04:59, March 27, 2007
Crimeney, you've got it all wrong again...I'll try to clean up the science part without disturbing your point, if you dont mind.PalMD 00:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Ok, Dawkin's letter shows NO approval for eugenics, just the opposite. Careful with the quote mining. Im not saying that no one in the world is a eugenecist, but chose the right ones. Singer is interesting...he makes ethical arguments about the sanctity of life, and creats a spectrum of sanctity. His ideas can be offensive, but he clearly states that killing is bad, just some killing is bad in different ways. He does not, as far as I can tell, speak of eugenics at all. You might consider leaving him out and finding a better example.PalMD 00:59, 27 March 2007 (EDT)