To deny the concept of human rights, and the validity of science because some foundational thinkers fell short is ridiculous.
OK, that's fair. Is the claim that such a framework did not exist before? Or is it that this new framework was somehow "fairer" and closer to our modern ideals of justice than the ones that existed before? Because neither of these claims seems defensible.
> To deny the concept of human rights, and the validity of science because some foundational thinkers fell short is ridiculous.
But where did I (or anyone else for that matter) deny the concept of human rights or the validity of science?
If mainstream thinking ignores rather large holes in human rights these people espoused, both in theory and practice, then it makes even more sense to point that out.
If your framework of freedom boils down to "might is right" in rather large amount of cases and brings unfreedom to big enough amount of people, then it is absolutely relevant while discussing your freedom concept. Exactly as reign of terror is relevant when discussing French revolution ideals.
It is relevant that someone writing about freedom conveniently did not counted whole groups as deserving that freedom in the first place.
It is much easier to be for free speech for example, when the group of people most likely to oppose you dont count.
Edit: by this logic, you cant critize Robespierre. Or Lenin/Stalin, because they were product of time and built an imperium anyway.
It is also relevant that nice sounding definition of freedom was used to defend the slavery or that the rational science at the time was actually exercise in motivated reasoning convenient to speaker (whether practically or just made him feel good and superior) - but not really result of fair unbiased cold look at world.