You wrote > The individual prejudices of particular scientists have no bearing on actual science. The point of the scientific method is to achieve objectivity, to which opinion is irrelevant.

This is a weird and naive view of ‘science’, which you seem to see as this ideal realm of truth completely disconnected from the actual people and contexts practicing it. Scientists have biases and this informs their theories. Eugenics is a perfect example of this — it attracted some very intelligent men who were blind to their own prejudices.

You wrote > I said that eugenics is not scientific. You clearly believe that it is. As you believe that eugenics is scientific, you clearly believe that it is based upon evidence and that other races really are inferior.

Woah! I said that some very famous scientists believed and still believe in eugenics. I pointed this out not to suggest I agree with them, but to show how scientists are prone to the same biases as the rest of us, and therefore we have to be careful not to give scientists too much unaccountable political power. Again, I think you have a weird and somewhat religious view of ‘science’. It would be helpful to research the dark history of eugenics. For one thing, not all eugenicists were racists — some discriminated not on the basis of race, but of intelligence or ‘mental fitness’. There are many varieties of prejudice.

You wrote > I would say I have nothing more to say to you, but it’s rare to catch a dyed-in-the-wool flake. Although I must say you would be the most useful idiot the neo-nazis could ever find.

Huh?