Nope. It's the basis of the idea that mankind is infinitely malleable, that he can be changed and molded to fit the new socialist world.
It's the human equivalent of Lysenkoism, that genetics is a lie.
Eugenics is not the study of human differences and how they are (or are not) inherited, it's the promotion of selective breeding (or forced non-breeding by sterilization).
But let's assume that the Nazis and others who supported eugenics in the 20th killed 15M people.
The most aggressive supporters of the tabula rasa theory are Communists, since they can then dodge the question of how they're going to get around innate human nature. According to them, there IS no innate human nature. Tabula rasa.
The TR boys killed upwards of 100M people in the 20th, possibly as many as 150M.
If we're going to discredit a theory because of how it is used, shouldn't it be TR that's discredited, not eugenics?
Not in the sense that John Locke referred to it-- his definition of the individual was more general and complex.
Eugenics is not the study of human differences and how they are (or are not) inherited, it's the promotion of selective breeding
I understand this, but determinism is implicit in genetics. Eugenics is it's practical application.
The most aggressive supporters of the tabula rasa theory are Communists,
Classic Liberal thinkers also, but not carried to the absurdly simplistic-- ultimately deterministic--extent of Stalin and Mao.