3 ms·

Sorry, but I intrinsically dispute your hypothesis that you can approach the world's problems with pure logic. I don't believe that, so I don't need to be "peda

• kilgnad 4y ago
  You can't approach it with pure logic. You have to factor in your morality. The issue at hand here is bias. Meaning were you aware that your morality was factored into your logic? That your thinking wasn't logical at all but highly highly biased. >[If you really think eugenics is "the logical conclusion", and want one of several possible, reasoned arguments against it: consider what the actions required for eugenics do to the structure of society and its values] We do it for the pets and the livestock we raise, no problems there. We have a healthy community of happy dog pets in the US created from eugenics, genocide, castration and neutering. However, Dogs are mostly unaware of the overarching horror of their existence so this is one way to make the "logic" work with human societies. Make them unaware. Again not the point here. The point is bias. How can you think Eugenics is so wrong, but then be perfectly ok with it when it comes to dogs? Your mind casts blind spots and illusions throughout your decision making framework so you are unaware of how inconsistent and biased it is. We have no choice but to follow it though. No amount of logic will make you curl in disgust at dog eugenics as it does with human eugenics.