This author comes from a different planet with a nonsensical definition of violence that covers a good chunk of human interaction and child rearing.. He is entitled to his theories, just as the rest of us are entitled to ignore them..

Gawd, what a lot of twaddle. Hitler and Himmler were vegetarians, but they were certainly not averse to violence.

Throughout history, well meaning people have tried to find a philosophy to prevent war and violence. In the 19th century, theologians identified "The Seven Deadly Sins" as the root of all evil. Eradicate "The Seven Deadly Sins" and everything would be humpty dory. Naturally, they failed.

Come the 20th Century, and people identified "class distinction" and "the profit motive" as the root of all evil. They tried to create classless societies where profit did not exist, and they failed. Rather than admit their failure, they created the world's most efficient forms of totalitarianism, complete with gulags and secret police, thereby becoming a parody of that which they claimed to oppose.

Next came "racism" End racism and all would be well. That failed too because people will always have a preference towards their own kinship groups and you simply can't wish away group hostility.

Now here we go again. This author identifies "violence" as the root of all evil. Just stop being violent and everything will be OK. That is as realistic as saying that world overpopulation can be prevented if only people stopped thinking about sex.

Where does OLO get some of these dingbats?

you write..a good article
except for this line..riddled with error

so i will break..it down...with my perceived remedy..or correction

<<..Violence is social interference..>>

violence..is ANTI_social..attention theft..
thus interference..with our social-interactive perception..as well as affecting..our future social interaction's..

social inter-FEAR-ance..
<<..in the genetically programmed feelings>>

feelings..are a result..of real..[or imagined events]
pre-conditioned..arrived at..after the secondary causal feelings,..pehaps..

or via inheritable..pre-conditioning..of localized emotional quotient..by parental sources/peers..the/times..our/sex or race and as our other external..imposed senses..impose their presence..into our awareness..

[too much time to think]

genes..can only..pre-dispose us to..specific condoning biology..not program physiologically..[physiologically/genetically speaking]..

as opposed to environmental external..events based life events..
occurring..inevitably..outside us..but as perceived/affected..from within

[social/interfered/altered..]
thus programed..into our..<<..thoughts,>>language..perceptions interactions..

inherited..or altered..conscious..or unconscious..
<< sensing and/or behavior..>>..

the behavioral/nature/nurture/tendency..

<<of another organism.>>

ok..thats as good as i..can put it

but i agree..<<..It might be inflicted..by an individual or an institution.>>..intentional or accidentally..consciously/unconsciously

it can only be determined which..via proper testing..via split-Half Reliability:testing..defining..its specific cause..determining..the specific measure..of the events consistency..and its future probability..

indicating..a specific necessitated/deliberated..
conscious need for specific avoidance..or managed self control

educated awareness..of the nessisity
for awareness of our affect..on each other

http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15136#15136

people denying corrupt and fallen natures always come up with the wrong conclusions. Violence is a result of lust, greed and not getting one's own way (all part of the adamic nature). Just look at 'peaceful demonstrations'put on by some 'environmentalist'when they don't get their own way. Some non violent rebellion such as manipulation can be just as destructive as violence.

"In summary, the person who uses violence is not angry; they are terrified. To the inexperienced or fearful eye, of course, this is not apparent. Ending human violence will require us to stop terrorizing our children, giving violent individuals support and safe spaces in which to feel their suppressed fear consciously, and changing institutions, such as the legal system, so that we no longer use fear to try to 'modify' behavior."

A friend of mine was caught in a violent situation, he was angry that five 'gangsters' had robbed him and the patrons of the nightclub that he was attending with his wife.
He was not terrified but when the 'gangsters' ordered everyone to lie down on the floor he decided to act, drew his pistol and shot the five armed assailants dead.

Nowhere does the author touch on real violence.

I read the article in full, which shows, at the least, that I possess endurance.

People make choices. Some people, in terrible situations, struggle to find any solution other than a violent one. Others use violence precisely when they in a position of power over somebody else who is weaker and had fewer defences. If the Law is absent, such people use violence all the more. Because they can get away with it.

Stephanie Jarrett has written exhaustively about violence in Aboriginal communities, usually men over women and children, particularly girl children: her book 'Liberating Aboriginal People from Violence' (2013) deserves a far greater audience, including the author of this opinion-piece.

In early documentation, it is quite common to come across references to Aboriginal men beating their wives to death, so much so that one begins to wonder if such violence was standard in traditional societies.

Fear ? Hell no. Power, and the likelihood of getting away with the most appalling brutality ? Much more likely. A sort of arrogance if anything, the belief that they have the right to do whatever they damn-well like.

Joe
www.firstsources.info