No, I was referencing the "worst argument" as posited in the article, and contrasting from it. I can see how this might have been misunderstood (my wording was poor) but it would be quite silly to literally repeat the fallacious argument from the article as if it hadn't already been discredited, wouldn't it?
Eugenics is inherently dangerous; the danger is far worse than the associations drawn in the "worst argument". I am not saying eugenics is bad because Hitler did it, in fact I'm saying the connection to Hitler does a disservice to understanding the dangers of eugenics. It's inherently dangerous—interfering with genes for arbitrary purposes risks upsetting the entire balance the gene pool has developed without purpose.
And that is closer to discussing the substance instead of the archetypal example in the category, so might as well skip the first part.
It's possible both are true: that the reader understood the point already, but learned a better way to articulate it in an effort to advance another conversation.
No, I was referencing the "worst argument" as posited in the article, and contrasting from it. I can see how this might have been misunderstood (my wording was poor) but it would be quite silly to literally repeat the fallacious argument from the article as if it hadn't already been discredited, wouldn't it?
Eugenics is inherently dangerous; the danger is far worse than the associations drawn in the "worst argument". I am not saying eugenics is bad because Hitler did it, in fact I'm saying the connection to Hitler does a disservice to understanding the dangers of eugenics. It's inherently dangerous—interfering with genes for arbitrary purposes risks upsetting the entire balance the gene pool has developed without purpose.
That was my entire point.