Ok...so , on a synthesis. Recently , i've been trying to learn some stuff via pdf archives. In one of em i found a peculiar definition of violence that i wanted to share.
" Violence: Attitude or behaviour that consist in a violation of the human being ( or a deprivation) that is essencial as a person. (physical, psychical, moral, rights, liberties) ".
Leaving on the sides examples of these " It can be executed by a person, an institution (prison) or a structural situation (laboral explotation, social injustice, ethnocentrism, etc...)"
Which basically means that a deprivation of a human right is a form of violence such as censorship in freedom of speech. Which got me kinda confused and doubt the verosimilitude/precision of the text. So i wanted to know what are y'all opinions. Is this the proper definition?

That's an awfully specific definition for a word as versatile as this. Seems like the text is talking about human rights violation, not violence in general.

Is it a proper definition? No, not really, but it isn't wrong in a sense that you can define any word in a way that you want to fit your agenda

Well Violence comes from something that is Violent. And that is an Adjective. And Adjectives can never be Objective or have ONE factual definition. It's up to your opinion of what is and what isn't. So objectively defining an Adjective in complete detail is impossible.

The best we can do is vaguely come up with a concept of what the vast majority of Humans believe "Violent" or "Violence" means or is.

Violence: A Word used to describe a subjective level of behavior or activity that is too aggressive, disorderly, immoral, assertive, or powerful.

Violent:A Word used to describe something or someone that behaves in a subjectively high level of aggression, disorder, immorality, assertiveness, or power.

The angry dog is quite violent.

The storm violently tore through the town.

Violence is a current problem in our word.

I think it'd be something like that, I think what's important about defining violence is including that living things, inanimate things, and nature can act violently as well. As Violent can be as simple as describing a movement or behavior.

As well as including that Violent is subjective. What is violent could differ from person to person, society to society, and country to country.

No one can objectively claim anything to be violent.

Violence is nature's natural selection, only the strong and intelligent survive.

So going by your logic school shootings are natural selection? I don't think those two really go hand in hand

That's both an incredible misunderstanding of natural selection and an absolutely false assessment of the fitness of violent/psychotic people. Well done.

Natural selection is the name for the process whereby living things who are better adapted to their environments tend to breed more and survive longer. The longer you survive and the more offspring you create, the 'fitter' you are. Natural selection is not "I keel more animal, i am superior."

There's two main points that completely invalidate the idea that psychotic and violent people, such as school shooters, are more fit. The first is that natural selection isn't a simulation. It isn't a guess at how well an individual would survive alone in Africa 15,000 years ago with a sharpened bone and some rocks. It's an active process that's happening now, in the modern world.

For the second point, let's look at a hypothetical person named Jimmy. Jimmy is a violent person with psychotic tendencies. After getting into some trouble at school, Jimmy decides to resort to something that no one should ever, ever resort to. He gets a gun, brings it to school, and does something terrible. Actions have consequences, and there's only three ways this can end:

1): Jimmy gets arrested and put behind bars. Because he is imprisoned, he is unable to find a physical partner, very likely for the rest of his life. Jimmy is very unfit because he is unable to breed.

2): Jimmy is killed; either in a shoot out, by capital punishment, or by his own hand. Jimmy is extremely unfit because he is dead.

3): Jimmy, against all odds (literally), gets away with it. He's watched some action movies lately and learned to escape and lay low. The kind of life he's stuck with greatly increases his chances of getting killed, and makes it nearly impossible to safely have offspring. Jimmy is very unfit because the chances of him surviving and breeding have lowered dramatically.

No matter what happens, the result is Jimmy's fitness being lowered. He is not favored by natural selection.
This hypothetical scenario can be applied to just about every situation involving someone committing a violent act. In the modern world, being violent does not make you fit.

There's also a much simpler way of looking at it: If psychopathy and/or violent nature was favored by natural selection, there would be a lot more psychopathic and/or violent people.

It really depends on the violence, violence using a firearm is different, but only every other kind of violence is natural selection, 2 animals fight, the strong one survives, then fights another, the stronger survives, over time, that species will grow stronger and stronger, of course a few times someone's going to get lucky, like possessing a firearm and choosing a bunch of toddlers, but, yes I still believe violence, is a way of a species evolving and becoming stronger. Aka natural selection.

this one is a doozy

Giving birth at a young age doesn't really indicate better 'fitness'. More stupidity, sure, but there's no research I could find indicating that teenage fathers live longer and have more children. ¯\_(ಠ_ಠ)_/¯


Yeah, I guess. Competence of, and capacity for violence is indeed something that can be valued as important for the sake of protecting your family. Sure.


You basically answered yourself here. Violence is not nearly as valued, or as common, as it once was. By your own words, our society has changed for the better. There's a term for that. It's natural selection, and through that, evolution. The violent people end up dying through violence.

Yes, there are some people who find violent, rough men attractive. That doesn't mean that's where the population's headed. You sort of implied that yourself when you called it 'primal psychology' and 'dumb girls'.



-----
also,
you still don't understand what natural selection is, my boy

Violence, Violation, Hostility. Mentally and or physically cause harm are all forms of violence. A word like Violent can have many contextual meanings. The Animal Kingdom can be defined as Violent same with Nature. Violent can loosely replace the word Chaos whereas Peace would be order.

The word Violence shouldnt be a hard concept to grasp.