I find that when I say things like "Homosexuality is abnormal." or "Blacks and whites are akin to different breeds of dogs." people have a kneejerk reaction, despite there being no value judgment in either statement. If the evidence shows that we are simply a part of the animal kingdom then these statements are as benign as the assessments of any other species behaviors or physical characteristics. To deny this, imo, is to limit our ability to understand our world and our understanding of each other just as much as refusing to admit we're not gods special project does.

Edit: I'm adressing Ragdish in this post. I only discovered after I'd finished it, that that isn't really clear.

Well, I think it's a bit tricky to say "there is a lefwing inclination to so and so" in this context. Nutxaq's quote: "Homosexuality is abnormal", is ofcourse true, at least if you define "abnormal" as something that less then 80% of the population engages in.

But isn't there a leftwing inclination to say that homosexuality is not a choice? Or is that really left-wing? Isn't it just liberal? Or what? What is it?

I am left-wing, in that I am a socialist. But I don't disagree with you at all, that humans aren't a "blank slate". So how can you expect there to be a specific group of "Blank-slate-ists" that adhere to a specific political and philosophical viewpoint?

As I remember Hamby saying once on these boards, it is really a misrepresentation to say that there are some parts of our behavior that is our genes and some parts that are social conditioning. You can't divide things up like that. I fully acknowledge that there are things in human nature that inclines us towards specific behaviour, but that behaviour still isn't set in stone. It is possible to affect all parts of human behaviour by social conditioning; nothing is off limits. And on the opposite side of the coin, it is impossible to avoid our genetic disposition in any context whatsoever.

We are a product of our genes. Even trying to socially condition eachother is a result of our genes being what they are. If we weren't genetically disposed to develop complex brains, we wouldn't have the intelligence to understand, and try to mainpulate, our social conditioning of eachother.

I agree with you that some people don't understand this, but I don't agree that there is a specific political agenda akin to the Intelligent Design movement, that is out to perpetuate a lie, that people aren't a product of their genes.

I have discussed the Inheritance/social environment issue (Arv/miljø is a Danish expression describing the issue. It literally translates to Inheritance/environment) with many different people, and if somebody is simply unecducated on the issue, and believes that people are a blank slate and I tell them: "but studies show that so-and-so..." their response has always been: "oh, I didn't know that, I guess that makes sense."

I don't think you'd get that response from an ID proponent, because they would reject studies that didn't show what they want them to show. It is a political issue for them, where as I've found that the people I've discussed Inheritance/environment with don't see it as a political isssue. It is a scientific issue to them, and they just want to know more about how we function, and don't reject scientific findings.

That's my personal experience. Can you give me some examples of your experiences? Or perhaps link to essays or opinion-pieces which propose the "Blank-Slate" idea as a political issue? Because I've never experienced it as such.