Re: 6 years for attempted murder

realpch wrote:
Michael Snyder wrote:
realpch wrote:
Michael Snyder wrote:
realpch wrote:
Michael Snyder wrote:
realpch wrote:
Michael Snyder wrote:
realpch wrote:
Michael Snyder wrote:

<snip>

In all violent crimes *EXCEPT* for domestic / family violence, there
is a general rule of thumb that roughly 80 - 85 percent of perps are
male and 15 - 20 percent are female. Although informal and unexplained,
this rule is so far reaching that it even applies to serial killers.

What's even more interesting is that the same proportion applies to
victims of violent crimes, across the board, except for rape and
sexual assault (and except for family violence as above).
What do you think would explain that? Would we be looking at some kind
of biochemical percentage?
The human race evolved a division of labor, hundreds of thousands of
years ago. The women would do the child rearing, and the men would
do the hunting and fighting.
So you subscribe to the theory of physical and chemical determination of
violence, then?
No, I subscribe to the theory that we are one species with a
sexual division of labor. I don't speculate about how the
division is mediated.
So you feel that the capacity for violence is simply a reflection of the
division of labor but you are not willing to ascribe this to physical
evolution? How odd. Why not?
You didn't say "physical evolution" the first time, you said
"physical and chemical determination". Inheritance is complex.
There is no "violence gene". That doesn't mean that it isn't
influenced by genetics, as well as culture and any other kinds
of inheritance we may not yet understand. We're not arguing
here, I don't disagree with what you've said and I don't reckon
you disagree with most of what I've said.
No, I wasn't arguing. Just trying to get specifics. I said physical and
chemical determination, but I certainly could have substituted
evolution. I don't know about any violence gene, though someday some
scientist will announce they've found one, or two, or three, et cetera.
Hot gonna happen. Violence is part of life. You might as well
say there's an eating gene, or a walking gene.

Which is to my former point -- more violence is committed by men
because it's part of their role in life. Men kill the animals for
food and fight off the enemies. We are a sexually dimorphic
species. Yet by the same token we are a *mildly* sexually
dimorphic species, so women are perfectly capable of violence
too, just as men are capable of child nurturing.

Well, the genes tell how to put together a human being, with functioning
brain chemistry. If they put together a creature that is so aggressive
that it attacks all it's fellows, that's not good for survival. Of
course, if one's brain makeup does not allow for a certain optimal
amount of aggression, one gets wiped out.

Bingo. And what I am saying is that evolution, nature, what have you,
has allowed primates (and most mammals and possibly lower orders) to
concentrate that necessary degree of aggression in the male line.

Females can survive with less aggression of their own, because of the
division of labor that allows them to depend on the males to carry out
the aggressive functions. Just as males can survive with less child
nurchuring behaviors because they can depend on the females to carry
out this function.


.

Quantcast