Romany: ": there is absolutely nothing healthy about exhibiting aggression. "

Oh yes, far better to bottle up one's anger and make oneself dysfunctional. Thanks for that.

The problem is not aggression per se, as others have said, but the control of that aggression and the response of others. Why should one person's possibly irrational fear response be regarded as valid and another's possibly valid anger response be regarded as "absolutely...[un]healthy"? They are two sides of the same "fight or flight" coin that we all flip every time we are placed in a situation of hazard or confrontation. Lack of control of either reaction is likely to be counter-productive.

Frankly, as much as the abuser in this case may need to keep their anger under control, the "victim" needs to take some measure of responsibility for their own response as well, rather than expecting to be given preferential treatment because of it. There is far too much of this pandering to stupid "fears" in our nation and far too little analysis of how well they are founded.

CJ Morgan: "one of the defining features of being human is that with us, culture and society outweigh biology."

Culture and society have evolved out of the biology. Any time culture and society deviates from the biological imperatives it leads to inevitable backlash and frequently to widespread disobedience of the artificial "norm".

Steel: "What you're proposing is equivalent to elements of 1984, where the state decides what are 'good' emotions and what are bad ones."

Didn't see this before I made my own previous post, but that's absolutely correct. Provided an individual doesn't attack someone else in their anger ("attack" doesn't mean "yell at", BTW), then they should have every right to express their feelings. If the other person is aggrieved by that expression of emotion, they have the right to express that feeling too. neither should have the right to coerce the other into changing their response, nor should they have the expectation that the State will do so for them.

Only when the individual loses control and attempts to coerce another in some way should the State have any role at all, ISTM.

“You, Ludwig and halambolos are actually trying to socially engineer it away, like a communist, perhaps kim jong il.”

Not at all Steel. Aggression needs to be dealt with where it is inappropriate and either channelled to where it can be harmlessly expressed or reshapen into a non-threatening expression of concern or frustration.

You could possibly interpret that as social engineering I suppose. But of a totally appropriate type.

Society would be an ugly place indeed without any sort of social engineering, wouldn’t it?

I cannot see the corollary between condemning aggression and accepting communism. Except perhaps in the last section of this definition of in Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers.(Saunders. 2007)
where aggression is "manifested by destructive and attacking behavior, by hostility and obstructionism, or by a self-expressive drive to mastery."

The On-line dictionary defines aggression as "Hostile or destructive behavior or actions.". You two truly believe that such behaviour should be encouraged as healthy and normal? By what possible reasoning can you sustain this belief?

As for anger: - yes it can be a psysiological reaction to a fright or flight reaction. Its purpose is to get our adrenalin pumping and initiate safety inducing behaviour. But we are programmed to the fright-or-flight response only when in situations of life-threatening intensity. A poster who doesn't agree with us, or someone who queue-jumps (I cite these only as day-to-day situations which seem to incite anger in some people, not as personal accusations) are hardly life threatening.

The following is cited on http://www.csulb.edu/~tstevens/b-anger.html
"If anger prompts aggressive behavior toward other people, it can permanently harm relationships--especially with those we love. Prolonged or frequent resentment (mild anger) has been shown to be a significant cause of cardiovascular problems and heart attacks." Which is not exactly esoteric knowledge.

Rather than venting anger on those of us who disagree, could you perhaps provide a convincing argument to back up your contentions?

While anger is a normal emotion, and frustration can sometimes cause stressed people to lose it for a moment, people who REGULARLY show anger through aggression towards others should seek help with anger management because they lack proper communication skills since they aren’t able to assert themselves, have difficulty with controlling their own mind, possibly have a low EQ, are arrogant and lack empathy- basically, the person is an emotional and social cripple and should seek help.

Haralambos, do you know what the fight is about?