there are NO inherent human behaviours. We LEARN to act the way we do. (Page 3)

MattyD89: people decide weather they like the food or not due to thier experiances with food in the past. if youre first given a cockroach as a child and your mom says ew thats nasty, you might think that as well. but if your mother gave it to you and said these are very tatsy, yummy, healthy treats, the child might like it. as well inherant body attributes are inherant, but thst like saying a head in inherant, of course.

BEHAVIOURS are not ingerant, unless like you said, its a mental iless, or an underlieing genetic defect, which is still your enviorment. we are our enviorment so if there is something wrong with us it is our enviorment that created that problem, even within our own bodies

MattyD89: and it is no perminant, or inseperable. there are some babies who do not have those attributes when they are born do to enviormental defects. you are not GAURENTEES to be born with an arm, yet most are.

Nick: People do decide whether they like the food or not due to their experiences with food in the past and some of it can be environmental. People generally don't eat food that they have had bad experiences with. That is true. Although I cannot agree with you on your argument about taste preferences being environmental. I have seen children eat crayons and glue after having their mother repeatedly tell them that those things are "icky." People can get used to something that tastes bad over time, but that is not really a taste preference is it? There are some foods that I will always enjoy, so if I continue to eat that food it is an inherent behavior.

The ability for a baby to suck swallow is inherent in most. Although I have never heard of something like that happening, I would not be surprised if a baby was born without the ability to suck or swallow and if that is the case then they die off. And if they don't they should. It is hard to use the word all or every when referring to the behaviors of people. That is the downfall of racism.

I do not agree that genetics "are our environment." If that were the case then I would have no argument. The environment can affect genetics, but the environment cannot create heart disease that kills almost every one of your family members at around 50 years of age or any other problem... or maybe a positive predisposition.

You did not address my pain reaction argument specifically.

aleph777: eating, shittin, s~x, dying, breathing, sweating, the desire for pleasure, the penchant for patterns, the need to dance, women don tlearn to like c*** they just do...vice versa..there's more

baahhumbug: The things people talk about that come naturally to us (eating, desire for pleasure, defecating etc etc) are not the things that make us 'human'. All animals eat, sleep, shit and procreate. The 'human' behaviours (wearing clothes, walking upright, using money and speach) these are the things we are 'taught' whether directly or indirectly. So I'd say it's true that there are no 'inherently human' characteristics that come 'naturally'.

aleph777: i consider the things you list (defecation, rutting, eating etc.)as being as characteristically human as the exclusive traits are... the human is not the sum total of the differences between himself and the other animals he is the differences AND the similarities.. to say that the traits we share with other animals are not definitively human traits is in my view a fallacy... you may as well say they are not definitively animal traits. But in regard to the differential traits........ music, bird do it, but we do it better, in fact all of the most famous classical composers hav ebeen found to each bear a distinct resemblance in form an structure to a variety of birds, with each composer being more similar to one bird call than another, simply more complex. spinning in a circle (as children do to get dizzy) is a primitive form of intoxication, it comes naturally , it leads to new viewpoints and modes of thought....or poetry...it is merely sublimated s&x drive . but it results as a natural effect of the speech and reasoning and symbolic abilities.. the urge to possess too is natural, leading to the desire for aquisition and private property and war, clothes are merely a more complex version of the dance of certain birds or their feathery adornments, being a combination of these phenomenon and our increased ability to design (as well as climactic practicality. u remind me of the old feminist argument that use dto say the differences between the sexes were all learned and that men and women were essentially the same unless conditioned otherwise.. i believe that only the most entrenched can fail to see the error of that idea in these less politically motivated times...boys and girls are different, fact. not learned but genetic behavioural differences...heightned and distorted by society yes.. but there nonetheless..i believe you are talking about something else...u see i believe humanity is presently in flux. an evolutionary quantum leap is happening , we cant see it cos we're in it, you are describing the ideal post-human in my opinion..read chomskys work on the nature of language formation in the infant mind...he is a dyed in the wool socialist and humanist perhaps you will take mor eheed of his words than those of a libertarian anrchist... lol....having said all that...i think the truth as usual is somewhere between ur position and mine...this is fun ty

MattyD89: Why do some like pain then?

Most don't, but some do.

Why are there those who are very angry, violent people?

And those that are not?

Behaviour down to its core is produced by our enviorment and how it has produced our minds.

Maybe not as much as childs, but as adults near 100%

and even when young, yes our geneics re our enviorment, in the larger picture you do have no arguement what-so-ever

If our genetics is not our enviorment, what is?

the sperm and egg that produced you were just part of the enviorment before they actually came together.

Why would what they produce not be the enviorment as well?