What is human nature?

i never said it was universal
generally speaking people like all 3 of those.

they are humans and I doubt you could justify your use of the word abnormal.
human nature is about universals. if you're not speaking universally then you're not speaking about human nature

>human nature has an absolute definition
when i say human nature, i mean general pattern of human values and behavior

GIBS MUH DAT

MUH DIK/PUSSY

ME BETTER THAN YOU

TRIBE BEFORE U

then no one could possibly argue against you because "general" is such a vague term.

by general, i mean most people
is this really that hard to follow?

PLEASE STOP THIS MEME WHERE EXCEPTIONS DISPROVE RULES

>retarded pseudo-intellectuals think that human nature has to be a physical law like gravity, else it doesn't exist

Absolutely brainlet-tier philosophizing.

yes because general doesn't actually mean most, that is what majority means. you just clarified what your position is now, it wasn't clear before.

my argument against you is that most humans having certain traits is too weak of a definition for human nature. most humans are female, does that mean being a female is human nature but being male is not? that is what your definition would accept.

you must be a real something to more then beyond reality

>does that mean being a female is human nature but being male is not?
by my definition, yes. it sounds odd, but what does that matter?
>too weak a definition
by what measure

let me use your definition again to respond to this. according to your definition wanting to reproduce is human nature because most people want to reproduce. however, in order to reproduce there must be a male and female who have sex. yet, according to your definition being male is not a part of human nature. so that would mean it is human nature for females to reproduce with something that is not a part of human nature. how could being male not be a part of human nature if it is human nature for females to reproduce with them? your definition leads to inconsistencies like this
>by what measure
these inconsistencies spring up which show that your definition does not make sense. only a universal definition of human nature would avoid these inconsistencies

>so that would mean it is human nature for females to reproduce with something that is not a part of human nature
this is correct and makes perfect sense. it just sounds confusing

I don't think it makes sense because human nature can't be contingent on the existence of abnormal traits. If it is required for the behavior to occur then it is itself part of human nature.

>human nature can't be contingent on the existence of abnormal traits.
clearly it can by my definition.
>If it is required for the behavior to occur then it is itself part of human nature.
not really. if all men disappeared, it wouldnt stop women from liking men.

>clearly it can by my definition.
I'm using your definition to show that it can't.
>not really. if all men disappeared, it wouldnt stop women from liking men.
that isn't what I said. I said it is required for the behavior to occur. if all men died then women would not be able to reproduce. this shows that the behavior is contingent on something you are saying is not a part of human nature. I am arguing that this contingency makes it a part of human nature. if it is human nature for females to want to reproduce with males then being male is not just an abnormal trait. if p requires q for b to occur then q is fundamental and not just abnormal.

Doesn't exist but if you want to get down to what is considered human nature then it is dependent on the environment. Most people say greed is human nature but don't realise that capitalism has poisoned humanity.

>dying isn't human nature
>requiring food to not die isn't human nature
>needing to breathe air isn't human nature
>suckling on your mommys titty as a baby isn't human nature

Asking questions

human nature is about what humans act like and think like. dying and requiring energy just comes with being an organism. it says nothing more about humans than it does about squirrels or amoeba. sucking on your mom's tits is also not a part of human nature. most humans do have a sucking reflex though. but there's nothing special about human nipples, the human nipple is just a sign stimulus that can be imitated by all kinds of things such as a finger.

The set of tendencies, behaviors, preferences and so on that are characteristic of human beings.
I remember when Pinker's book on the blank slate came out, the negative reviews could be divided into two categories: the first continuously repeated that Pinker was wrong in thinking that there are people who still agree with blank-slatism and o-m-g how could he waste an entire book on debunking a concept nobody believes in, while the second was made up of people who kept repeating blank-slatism is correct.