Bad idea. The world needs to see what kind of a lunatic he is. The world needs to know his arguments in order to repeal.
He seems to be a nut, but that doesn't mean his ideas are wrong.
Agreed, but after reading a bit of it (I downloaded a file with MD5 of 9e72e26916c20481a1f6e4781fd4d505) I can spare you the pain. It's crap.
Still, his actions make it necessary to repeal all of his arguments and assumptions.
Really? James Watson and William Shockley both said very unpopular things about race. Shockley advocated a policy of sterilizing lower class black people. Should we repeal all use and knowledge of DNA and semiconductors?
Even if Shockley started killing black people as stage one eugenics, his actions would have absolutely no impact on his ideas. None.
You badly underestimate the perverse creativity of a paranoid schizophrenic. I've never seen that one but I've certainly seen things every bit as crazy.
(I have a bit of a soft spot for paranoid schizophrenic rantings; it's like outsider art for philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art)
The central idea of eugenics - that we can control our evolution the way we did with dogs or cattle - is not inherently flawed, but I wouldn't trust the evolution of our species to its current members. Before we think about building a better mankind, we need a better mankind.
This is a perfect example of why it's bad to reject an idea simply because it has unpleasant proponents. If we rejected eugenics based on unpleasant associations, thousands of Ashkenazi Jewish children would have died a horrible death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay%E2%80%93Sachs_disease#Scree...