Difference between revisions of "Talk:Eugenics"
(Want to read something shocking?) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
I'd like to see what he had to say. It might be interesting.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 14:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT) | I'd like to see what he had to say. It might be interesting.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 14:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Well, first read what he had to say at [[talk:Politicized Science]]. It's rather shocking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 19:05, March 30, 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)
- I'd like to add what Crichton said about eugenics - which was censored from a Wikipedia article on the grounds of "Who's he? What does he know? He's only a novelist!" (paraphrased, obviously) --Ed Poor 14:02, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to see what he had to say. It might be interesting.--PalMDtalk 14:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- Well, first read what he had to say at talk:Politicized Science. It's rather shocking. --Ed Poor 15:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)