No, he said economic inequality, healthcare and education policy, social immobility, and parent-unfriendly corporate structures have a net "anti-eugenic" effect, which you chose to interpret as an argument for eugenics.
Is it unreasonable for me to interpret someone who is against "anti-eugenic" effects to be for eugenic effects when they start their comments with "we need people like her to reproduce"...?
I should clarify: when I say "for eugenic effects" I mean "in support of the general ideas underlying eugenics, even if opposed to eugenic policies." I'm saying above that both eugenics and his "anti-eugenic effects" are based on a flawed idea, one which michaelochurch (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to still endorse regardless of whether he is for or against eugenic policies.
