Kowalski

This is exactly what I said - you have the right to disallow anyone you like from coming on your private property. Please point either to where I said you didn't have that right, or to where I said there is a "universal right to immigration" including infringing upon private property?? Also please explain how and why white nationalists currently own all of Europe or America, then you'll have an argument against immigration.

Well that's not entirely true - people with absent or abusive parents of the opposite gender tend to be far more susceptible to domestic, sexual, physical abuse and such. And people who have their preferences squashed as children are usually more susceptible to bullying/interpersonal manipulation later on in life and are thus more vulerable to conmen/extortionists and generally manipulative or intimidating people. But I was talking more about on a global scale than an interpersonal one - a society full of untraumatized people is simply more functional and therefore better equipped to deal with any social or global problem whether it be psychopaths, earthquakes or whatever. So a society in which potentially peaceful people are made violent is less effective at dealing with inherently violent people, if such people exist. That means that even if there were no solution to anti-social behavior other than directly genetically-engineering people or implementing voluntary eugenics (I guess you could use involuntary genetics too but I assume we both agree that would be wrong), a society with less traumatized people would simply be better able to do this. All I can see an argument for is that Stef should be saying "Solving child abuse is the key, direct or indirect, to solving all problems within society" rather than "Child abuse causes most violence in society". And that's in strictly empirical terms - on a gut/common-sense level I think anyone who has a somewhat high degree of self-knowledge and understanding of human nature based on life experiences kind of gets that child abuse is behind most violent/dysfunctional behavior in the world, but yes that's just an unverified personal opinion, and now that I think of it that's probably why Stef said he was agnostic on the issue - to avoid these kind of accusatory arguments. So I'll take back what I said about him being inconsistent. If Stef is self-contradicting by arguing for environmental factors being the main cause of most violence while also claiming agnosticism, then is the author of Evil Genes self-contradicting too? Because I doubt she would make the claim that she has absolute proof an inherent anti-social personality disorder, so in that sense she's agnostic as well. And what type of society is best equipped to do this? One full of traumatized people or one full of well-balanced people? Well, who do you think would be better equipped to live in relative harmony with a genetic sociopath - a well balanced nonsociopath or a traumatized, unconscious nonsociopath? Well that's because it basically is a cure-all by definition. Even problems that have nothing to do with child abuse are better dealt with by well-balanced people who have not been abused. I don't think Stef's ever said that child abuse is literally the only thing in the world that needs to be addressed, just that it's the most fundamental thing. Which it is, even if it's granted that there are genetic sociopaths as I explained. It's true that reducing child abuse will bring about an overall peaceful world. Whatever issues are caused by something other than child abuse are still best dealt with by people as well-balanced and untraumatized as possible and I don't think Stef's ever argued that no other issues are necessary, in fact I've heard him talk quite a few times about non-child abuse related issues

Also I forgot my most important point: If some people are hardwired for extreme violence regardless of environmental factors, the best way to bring about a society in which these people can be managed either through offering opportunities that minimize their desire for committing violence and the capacity to cause harm to others (good jobs, boxing matches or such, security systems for homes, cheap, efficient self-defense items etc), or by bringing about an society that allows for the best genetic research is one in which the people who have the inbuilt genetic potential to be non-violent are not corrupted by the trauma of early violent experiences. A nonviolent, free-market based voluntary society would be inherently better at solving problems caused by inherently violent people than the bureaucratic statist ones we live in now. So even granting that some people are completely, unavoidably predisposed to anti-social behavior, the violence that warps inherently nonviolent children into violent adults only hinders society's ability to find solutions for the behavior of the unavoidably violent. In this case child abuse is still the root cause of most violence in the world, just indirectly in terms of hindering solutions for genetically violent people, rather than directly in terms of all violent people being that way purely because of environmental factors.

Are you in support of distinct human beings to self-determine? Most people enjoy the novelty of interacting with people of different backgrounds, and many form intimate relationships and have children with someone of a different race or culture. I'm not sure how you can advocate the prevention of people doing this without advocating violence. Also I'm not sure how you can define the nonviolent growth of a demographic or the nonviolent shrinking of a demographic as some sort of attack on white people. As if people moving to a different region, and people having kids are violent acts. I don't see how you can advocate keeping the white population high without preventing the movement or reproduction of people of other races (violence). If people want to establish mixed societies, they should be able to do so. Also, we can prevent people from coming onto our property, no one has a 'right' to immigrate. Of course - you can prevent any race you want coming onto your property - i.e. whatever land you bought with money from your labor. It's just you can't reasonably or morally claim the entire abstract concept of "Europe" or "America" belongs to an arbitrarty group of people with certain physical traits, and that anyone without those traits who is within that imaginary border is somehow committing an act of aggression, making it OK to use force against them.

Well, you answered the question about whether you materially support what you believe in/are arguing for, so if such questions are irrelevant why answer one but not the other? That seems kind of evasive - why not just refuse to answer both? The questions are relevant in that they tell the person asking them whether the person they're debating with has processed any traumatic events they have been through in the past and whether they are clouding their viewpoint/arguments, and the phenomenon of experiences shaping and/or warping opinions is pretty universally accepted in the field of psychology. I never said that if someone suffered abuse as a child that whatever argument they're making is wrong. The implication that you're not asking an objective rational question can be debunked pretty easily by responding to the questions honestly and without evasion. I'm neither defending or attacking Stefan's in and of himself, I'm defending the viewpoint that violent experiences as an infant and child increase a person's chances of developing a violent behavior pattern. This is not at all exclusive to Stef, nor is it an unusual or fringe opinion within the field of mainstream psychology. When you frame it that people are simply blindly following stef you're engaging in the ad-hominem style of argument you're accusing people of using yourself. Anyone who takes a common-sense look at things can see that early childhood violence increases the likelyhood of adult violence. Human children model their behavior on that of their primary caregivers, or highly influential adults within their early lives. This is a proven and commonly accepted fact. If children have violent parents, siblings or family they are by virtue of this fact more likely to be violent themselves. Since the vast majority of people in the world generally do not commit violent crimes like rape and murder, even if some people are literally 100% genetically presisposed to commit acts of extreme violence, they're still a small minority, and reducing child abuse will decrease the violent behavior of people within that group who have the potential not to be violent, thereby further decreasing the size of this already small minority. If there is a such thing as a person unavoidably prewired for violence then nothing can be done about that until some sort of genetic engineering or voluntary eugenics system is implemented worldwide. So I'm not sure why you have a problem with Stef arguing that people should do something that will have an undeniable and tangible reducive effect on world violence, rather than him arguing for some theoretical engineering of global human genetics that we don't even know for sure is the cause of any violence whatsoever. It's this sort of irrationality that makes people assume that you're arguing from personal issues rather than logic/reason. Are you talking about where Stef claimed he's agonistic on the subject while also claiming that childhood violence is the main cause of most violence? If so, I don't think it's consistent to say both things and don't agree with him doing so, but I'm not arguing for or against Stef, I'm arguing that childhood violence causes adult violence. OK, and do you think what you've done has been more effective in reducing the levels of violence in the world that what Stef has done? I never said you didn't favor reducing childhood trauma. I also don't think anyone here ever said the world would become a paradise - obviously conflict is inherent in human relatonships. All people are saying is that without trauma and abuse, people will be able to deal with those conflicts constructively rather than with multigenerational mass murder. And anarchy isn't "FDR's philosophy", it's just the logically consistent applicaton of standards of behavior to all people. If it's illogical or inconsistent please explain how this is the case rather than just vaguely dismissing it as some sort of bandwagon.

Are you in support of distinct human beings to self-determine? Most people enjoy the novelty of interacting with people of different backgrounds, and many form intimate relationships and have children with someone of a different race or culture. I'm not sure how you can advocate the prevention of people doing this without advocating violence.. Also I'm not sure how you can define the nonviolent growth of a demographic or the nonviolent shrinking of a demographic as some sort of attack on white people. As if people moving to a different region, and people having kids are violent acts. I don't see how you can advocate keeping the white population high without preventing the movement or reproduction of people of other races (violence).

I have two questions for STer and Troncat, (obviously you're not obliged to answer): 1) What were your experiences of violence as children? 2) How much money are you donating to the scientific research of the causes of violence? You say that's a more effective thing to do than promoting nonviolence or being nonviolent oneself. I assume, given the degree of criticism you're leveling at this community's approach to the problem, that you're doing what you think will have an impact, right?

This video has been posted in almost every thread where this topic arises. Please look at past threads I've posted in where Fallon's work and what it means has been discussed ad nauseum. And let us not get sidetracked by it in this thread. Here we are wanting to get Stefan's particular view on where exactly and to what extent parenting fits in among the dynamics that lead to aggression and violence. The only argument I've ever heard made against this video is that it's anecdotal and isn't enough to constitute scientific proof of the nurture argument. Of course, that's true, but I've never seen strong evidence or arguments presented by proponents of nature for their own position, just an indirect undermining of the nurture argument through pointing out "there's not enough evidence to give a definitive cause yet". OK, there's not enough evidence - then stop asserting that nature is the primary cause of violence. Or provide some equally strong anecdotal evidence like a peacefully parented person with strong friend and family relationships going on a shooting spree despite being given all the factors necessary in life for good mental health.

Man, so sorry to hear that. On the one hand that you were brought up by a violent religious fanatic, but also that she's been so sedated by drugs. Which surely wouldn't help if you ever wanted to talk things over with her. Apart from if your mother was correctly labeled schizophrenic, I want to direct you to my thread discussing physical properties of mental illness: Biology and mental disorders? It seems there are behavioral and physical symptoms that co-occur in schizophrenia and which are not solely the effect of drugs. Even though drugs are able to dampen delusional thought and hallucinations, they are not at all a cure. They actually do hasten the decline in brain matter that was already present. What's far more promising is saving the schizophrenic's mental functions by targeted mental and social exercise ('use it or lose it'). Talk therapy might be helpful in disentangling childhood trauma that led to the disorder and managing the psychotic symptoms. I highly encourage everyone to actually look up above sources, look at further evidence of either side and make up your own mind. Psychiatry does a lot of harm to people, but that doesn't imply that mental disorders and their characteristics aren't real. Sure there are probably non drug-related physical brain differences between those with certain mental illnesses and "normal" people, but that's no different in principle to a bruise, scar, cut etc on a physically abused person. The approach taken now in psychiatry if applied to the body would be to label a beaten child with a black eye "black eye syndrome" based on an innate genetic predisposition to swelling of the eye area and to indefinitely prescribe anti-inflammatory drugs with horrible and permanently damaging side-effects. If these so called physical proofs of mental illness exist, then essentially we have objective physical evidence in the brains of mentally ill children that they've been been abused and traumatized, just the same as if there were bruising or cuts on the body - but do we send the parents to jail? Nope, just chemically lobotomize the abuse victims instead. I would make a relatively confident bet (of course I might be 100% wrong) that extreme trauma survivors such as civilians in war, soldiers, people from gang cultures/neighborhoods have different brains as well. That's nothing to do with some innate disease though, it's simply evidence of the brain having been damaged by terrible experiences, and I think it's the same with extreme mental disorders like schizophrenia. I really don't see any grey area in which modern psychiatry is sort of ok sometimes even if mainly bad - except maybe in the most extreme cases where drugs are absolutely needed to prevent somebody hurting themselves or others (which is a very small percentage of the millions put on drugs today)