>>11390145>His tweet publicly argues in defence of eugenicsNope. That's just what you assume. It just says it would work.
>Nothing else in the tweet is ambiguousNothing in his tweet is ambiguous. He just says it would work, in the commonly accepted meaning of the word. Your assumptions are the issue.
>The ambiguity lies in what outcomes are deemed desirable.That's not an ambiguity, that's a political, ideological question, which is not answered or involved in Dawkins' assertion.
If I say my car works, that leaves unanswered the question of where I want to drive, and that's fine because it works regardless.
When Dawkins says eugenics works, that leaves unanswered the question of what characteristics are to be desired, and that's fine because regardless of that answer it does work.
You expect him to answer that, but he doesn't have to. And when he doesn't you answer for him and pretend he wants to promote eugenics. That's just dishonesty and prejudice on your part.
I shouldn't have to post the follow up tweet, and he shouldn't have had to post it. You and your ilk are at fault for making a strawman to burn.
>>11390169The social effects of eugenics are also a different question. Like the ecological effects of using my car : even if it pollutes it still works.
And you're right that forceful sterilisations generate resentment. But right now we're aborting kids with genetic defects en masse and few people complain. So it depends.
>>11390266That's what it comes down to. The truth that Dawkins mentioned, according to you, should not have been mentioned.
