Get what I'm saying? I can see what your saying I disagree. This theory doesn't explain why the overwhelming majority of people who kill are male. This can be explained by social factors, such as raising men to believe that aggression and violence are an essential part of 'masculinity', of being a man. I would like men to stop tarring women with their own brush. I think women have more respect for life because we give it.
Perhaps there's also some deep seated frustration in men that they can't ever be the life givers, so they destroy it instead. Whatever it is, I wish they would stop being so irrational, get a grip and stop ruining things for the peaceful amongst us, both male and female. Human beings have a moral sense and the power of abstract thought. We're not at the mercy of our genetics and biology. We have free will and make our choices. Violent men are making the wrong choices.
We should not make questionable excuses and justifications for them. Evolution explains it perfectly. The male who knocks the other males on the head for "control" of the female breeding prize has just inculcated his "knock them on the head" genes to the next generation. He is "successful" by impregnating the "female prize" and thus evolution "naturally selects" his aggression over passivity.
Joint enterprise murder: ancient law jailing hundreds, say FOI reports
Males with passive genes will thus be selected out. It is obvious. The "female prize" would not have had much say as to who "knocks her up" in the past and still does not in some countries with a certain dominant degenerate religion. Thus evolution is ambivalent about female aggression but biased toward male aggression. Just as an aside: there are some very aggressive women out there as well, so to say that all females are the paragons of blissful virtue is not correct. Here in australia it is Spring and Magpie a bird with a big sharp beak breeding season.
The male birds "defend" the nest by swooping on anything in a radius of approx metres. They are very aggressive and sometimes even draw blood! The female birds do not exhibit such tendencies but I would suspect that the more aggressive birds are also aggressive at breeding too. For it is predominantly the female that thinks that breeding is a sublime virtue. Many men are actually scared of the responsibility and cost of "knocking someone up" and want the "fun" but certainly not the outcome. On many occasions it is the female that tries to entrap the male by attempting to convince him that taking on the massive responsibility of child raising is something he wants.
So to "get his way" he has to play along and pretend that this is also what he wants: when it is not, he is only interested in one thing and would happily move on to the next "female prize" if he could leaving the last female prize stuck with the wonder of "life giving". All of this is of course a big joke for neither the male or the female is a "life giver". Until you can say that you are god and created your body, you are nothing by a passenger in something that Evolution not you created! When you are "having sex", you are not doing it with another person but with Nature or Evolution.
Your emotions and procreation drive are an overlay imposed upon you by Evolution probably in the brain stem : they are not you, you are just the hapless passenger. So by identifying yourself as your drives, you are just dumbly playing into the hands of Evolution. You are not the new life. When you die you will be gone and you will have nothing to do with the subsequent generations.
Unless you have some contrary religious views, science clearly shows that the cost of procreation is clearly not worth it. Especially in today's environment when jobs are getting harder to get and house prices are going through the roof, there has never been a better time to question this whole breeding thing. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I would have to say that testosterone is not oxytocin, if you follow my meaning, and there are obvious reasons why testosterone causes increased muscle development and increased aggression. This is true throughout the world and across cultures. However, at the same time males by the same margin are more likely to risk their life heroically to help someone in trouble. Often complete strangers, often females, and frequently as an impulsive reflex without any thought.
If you encourage someone to kill, are you guilty of murder?
You bitches kill too. Just because you are soft all bitches are. Males are males, and we are animals and it is what it is. This is not going to be fixed, and men should be men. I do agree animals shouldn't be eaten. The book "Violent Land" the name of the author escapes me at the moment , which was published in the early 's by Harvard University Press succinctly points out that behavior has an environmental, cultural and biological basis for it.
How can you find some awesome topics to share. You are helping lots of people for doing this. Thank you for the sharing. I believe that violence is in our genes, but it is still sad how we are educated, but still uses emotions rather than our intellect.
It's true that there are definitely a lot of rotten apples in the human species but holding the entire species responsible for this contradicts that many most? One could say evolution is just an adaptive mechanism with which humans adapted to their environment but humans are much more than the sum of their instincts; they also have higher brain function which allows for self-reflection and rational thought. We no longer live in the Pleistocene when violence was an instinctual urge necessary for survival. In the modern age people commit to violence for malice or personal gain or even shits and giggles.
No survival is at stake here nor the collective responsibilty of the 'human race'. Just the malice of individuals. A previous commenter tried to imply it is somehow 'men' who are responsible for this violence but the same argument holds true: not all men. By the same token I could also argue that these are the men who women have put on this earth by mating with men who carry these traits, so that violence can also be inferred to their parner choice.
A ridiculous argument ofcourse, but so is holding an entire gender responsible for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals. Acutally, a recent study published in "Nature" magazine by researchers at Granada University concludes that cute little meerkats are the most violent, murderous animal on the planet.
Meerkats commit murder of fellow meerkats at a higher rate than any other animal, including us human beings.
People Who Pay People to Kill People
The study said that the murder rate of human beings by human beings is less now than in ancient times although the statistics are blurry at best in ancient historical documents and that our murder rate makes us "gentle as compared to other primates but more murderous as compared to most other mammals. Doubt they are higher than the wars we have and murders. When it comes to overall murdering and killing its you.
I doubt some small mammal goes around killing everything else. But humans for sure do. From small animals to our own kind we humans are king and proud of it. Yes proud because a lot of our society have no issue killing they just don't like to brag about it. I read about this topic via the Atlantic, which cited a study that drew the exact opposite conclusion and presented a list of the animals most likely to kill each other - on which humans were not even included. This seems like an area where you can use statistics to justify whatever conclusion suits your presuppositions.
Are humans bigger killers than the average animal?
Are they way less lethal than cuddly meerkats? Are they about average for primates? Whatever you want to say, you can find support for it. I think I understand your confusion. The statistics quoted on conspecific lethal aggression in my article are accurate as provided in the Nature article. Humans kill each other at a rate 7 times higher than the average mammal and about the same as subhuman primates according to the study published in Nature. Overall lethal aggression toward all species; that is, killing other species as well as their own, is a separate matter also discussed in my article, in which humans excel uniquely.
Meerkats don't kill people. Very few species of mammals animals do. The original Nature article also speculates about rates of violence in prehistoric human populations, but the "data" on that are by nature far less rigorous than the data that were collected on living species of mammals and human societies now in existence, so I do not comment either way on that matter, because in my opinion that conclusion is far too speculative. Could you please provide link to a story behind this: "When a boy trades a handgun for a father and projects his personal pain upon playmates, preferring to become a child murderer"?
Good day to everyone! I got it from Her last week. The blank ATM card withdraws money from any ATM machines and there is no name on it, it is not traceable and now i have money for business and enough money for me and my family to live on. But am happy now. Tell your loved once too, and start to live large. That's the simple testimony of how my life changed for good Love you all We forgot one last thing.
Crime + Investigation
The life experience of the killer. We often think he is a dark villain attempting to end humanity. Nevertheless every killer is a mentally, emotionally and spiritually injured entity who is just calling for help. Do not forget my friends the moments of your regret, when you realised that in rage you were the weakest at all. Most murders are crimes of passion that are committed by and against those who know each other, whether they're family members, during barroom brawls, on street corners, or in the home.
Most murders are pre-meditated, but some occur on the spur of the moment, during a heated argument, especially when there are weapons, such as firearms are present. Where is the evidence of a gene? What gene did you discover? The case occurred at around 2. TVM is informed that the…. Parliamentary Secretary for Reforms, Julia Farrugia Portelli, said that the citizenship programme was of great benefit for Malta.
Speaking at a conference on the citizenship and residence programme, organised by…. Skip to content. Dan l-artiklu huwa disponibbli anke bil-Malti. Current Affairs.
- The latter half of Mozarts life full of vicissitudes and enigmas (Mozart series Book 2).
- Legal Humor. Seriously. By Kevin Underhill.?
- No, PUBG addiction did not kill the 20 year old Telangana boy!
- The Best Mixtape I Have.
In one, a soldier would be killing an enemy soldier; in the next, the soldier would be killing a civilian; and in the last, used as a control, the soldier would shoot a weapon but hit no one. After the scans, they were also asked to rate on a 1 to 7 scale how guilty they felt in each scenario. Even before the study, Molenberghs knew that when he read the scans he would focus first on the activity in the orbitofrontal cortex, a region of the forebrain that has long been known to be involved with moral sensitivity, moral judgments and making choices about how to behave.
The nearby temporoparietal junction TPJ also takes on some of this moral load, processing the sense of agency—the act of doing something deliberately and therefore owning the responsibility for it. Significantly, the degree of OFC activation also correlated well with how bad the subjects reported they felt on their 1 to 7 scale, with greater activity in the brains of people who reported feeling greater guilt.