Ways to reduce domestic violence

1 Education using emotional awareness

2 Life education to address rejection, jealousy, and other emotional negative values.

3 Life education teaching relationship skills

4 Counselling is charged with a violence offence

5 Redesigning living spaces with a her area, a his area and a shared area

5 Redesigning living spaces with a her area, a his area and a shared area.

One design could be in the shape of a U with a garden area, the concept could exist in many other designs.

4 Counselling is charged with a violence offence

Counselling if someone is charged with a violence offence.

I think you have no idea on this topic. Domestic violence is often deliberate and calculated, and carried out with method by the perpetrator. They usually know they are doing it. All the counselling and education in the world isn’t going to solve it, if the person doing it wants to be dominating and manipulating.

party_pants said:

I think you have no idea on this topic. Domestic violence is often deliberate and calculated, and carried out with method by the perpetrator. They usually know they are doing it. All the counselling and education in the world isn’t going to solve it, if the person doing it wants to be dominating and manipulating.

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

I think you have no idea on this topic. Domestic violence is often deliberate and calculated, and carried out with method by the perpetrator. They usually know they are doing it. All the counselling and education in the world isn’t going to solve it, if the person doing it wants to be dominating and manipulating.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

I think you have no idea on this topic. Domestic violence is often deliberate and calculated, and carried out with method by the perpetrator. They usually know they are doing it. All the counselling and education in the world isn’t going to solve it, if the person doing it wants to be dominating and manipulating.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ways to reduce domestic violence

1 Education using emotional awareness

2 Life education to address rejection, jealousy, and other emotional negative values.

3 Life education teaching relationship skills

4 Counselling is charged with a violence offence

5 Redesigning living spaces with a her area, a his area and a shared area

Ban alcohol.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ways to reduce domestic violence

1 Education using emotional awareness

2 Life education to address rejection, jealousy, and other emotional negative values.

3 Life education teaching relationship skills

4 Counselling is charged with a violence offence

5 Redesigning living spaces with a her area, a his area and a shared area

Ban alcohol.

Have to disagree.
I’m never in favour of punishing the many to control the few.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ways to reduce domestic violence

1 Education using emotional awareness

2 Life education to address rejection, jealousy, and other emotional negative values.

3 Life education teaching relationship skills

4 Counselling is charged with a violence offence

5 Redesigning living spaces with a her area, a his area and a shared area

Ban alcohol.

Have to disagree.
I’m never in favour of punishing the many to control the few.

In houses where domestic violence occurs.

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Ban alcohol.

Have to disagree.
I’m never in favour of punishing the many to control the few.

In houses where domestic violence occurs.

OK.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ways to reduce domestic violence

1 Education using emotional awareness

2 Life education to address rejection, jealousy, and other emotional negative values.

3 Life education teaching relationship skills

4 Counselling is charged with a violence offence

5 Redesigning living spaces with a her area, a his area and a shared area

Ban alcohol.

Certainly regulate it in cases where it as involved domestic violence

This has happened in the past and else where in various communities but needs to be broadened in scope.

Alcohol can reduce peoples emotional stability.

The more they drink the less emotional stability they have.

I find this in most people, not everyone. some people can drink and be fine with it, some people can react badly to it.

Alcohol can strain both physically and emotionally in relationships and can be a trigger for all manners of historial events.

Hospitals see a lot of alcohol abuse.

You attack your “partner

You are presented with a choice

1 serve a mandatory 5 years no parole sentence

2 agree to deportation if you are from elsewhere , have a conviction and leave the country never to return

3 walk “ the gauntlet”

You walk a pathway lined with people with thin flexible canes that they strike you with as you walk by. Special lessons can be given to the executors of the gauntlet eg how to build up arm strength, the teaching of an efficient technique to maximise the blow. A man will walk in from to measure a slow pace. The executors of the game must be above 40 and show sufficient strength and promise/ resolve.

wookiemeister said:

You attack your “partner

You are presented with a choice

1 serve a mandatory 5 years no parole sentence

2 agree to deportation if you are from elsewhere , have a conviction and leave the country never to return

3 walk “ the gauntlet”

You walk a pathway lined with people with thin flexible canes that they strike you with as you walk by. Special lessons can be given to the executors of the gauntlet eg how to build up arm strength, the teaching of an efficient technique to maximise the blow. A man will walk in from to measure a slow pace. The executors of the game must be above 40 and show sufficient strength and promise/ resolve.

What about if your wife attacks you? Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen.

Ways to reduce domestic violence

1 Education using emotional awareness

2 Life education to address rejection, jealousy, and other emotional negative values.

3 Life education teaching relationship skills

4 Counselling if a person is charged with a violence offence

5 Banning individual alcohol consumption on a per case basis if a person has been charged with a related domestic violence offence.

6 Redesigning living spaces with a her area, a his area and a shared area

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ways to reduce domestic violence

1 Education using emotional awareness

2 Life education to address rejection, jealousy, and other emotional negative values.

3 Life education teaching relationship skills

4 Counselling if a person is charged with a violence offence

5 Banning individual alcohol consumption on a per case basis if a person has been charged with a related domestic violence offence.

6 Redesigning living spaces with a her area, a his area and a shared area

Banning never works but alcohol is a big part of domestic violence and just the same, banning domestic violence won’t help either. Such people need to be put into programs; group threapy etc.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ways to reduce domestic violence

1 Education using emotional awareness

2 Life education to address rejection, jealousy, and other emotional negative values.

3 Life education teaching relationship skills

4 Counselling if a person is charged with a violence offence

5 Banning individual alcohol consumption on a per case basis if a person has been charged with a related domestic violence offence.

6 Redesigning living spaces with a her area, a his area and a shared area

Banning never works but alcohol is a big part of domestic violence and just the same, banning domestic violence won’t help either. Such people need to be put into programs; group threapy etc.

Find out why it is occurring.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ways to reduce domestic violence

1 Education using emotional awareness

2 Life education to address rejection, jealousy, and other emotional negative values.

3 Life education teaching relationship skills

4 Counselling if a person is charged with a violence offence

5 Banning individual alcohol consumption on a per case basis if a person has been charged with a related domestic violence offence.

6 Redesigning living spaces with a her area, a his area and a shared area

Banning never works but alcohol is a big part of domestic violence and just the same, banning domestic violence won’t help either. Such people need to be put into programs; group threapy etc.

Find out why it is occurring.

That’s the sort of thing that shows up in group therapy.

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Banning never works but alcohol is a big part of domestic violence and just the same, banning domestic violence won’t help either. Such people need to be put into programs; group threapy etc.

Find out why it is occurring.

That’s the sort of thing that shows up in group therapy.

Doctors, psychologists and counsellors might refer them to group therapy

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Find out why it is occurring.

That’s the sort of thing that shows up in group therapy.

Doctors, psychologists and counsellors might refer them to group therapy

Correct.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ways to reduce domestic violence

1 Education using emotional awareness

2 Life education to address rejection, jealousy, and other emotional negative values.

3 Life education teaching relationship skills

4 Counselling is charged with a violence offence

5 Redesigning living spaces with a her area, a his area and a shared area

Ban alcohol.

Have to disagree.
I’m never in favour of punishing the many to control the few.

ban guns

note that if we do not do so, the frequency of domestic violence may decrease

SCIENCE said:

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Ban alcohol.

Have to disagree.
I’m never in favour of punishing the many to control the few.

ban guns

note that if we do not do so, the frequency of domestic violence may decrease

Or increase. No threat to shoot so bash instead.

Courts put DV offenders on programmes, Corrective Services arrange who and where (in the country regions that’s limited) and if they don’t attend they send them back to court for breaching the order. Those that offer the programmes will terminated the service if they offenders misses a number of sessions

Tamb said:

SCIENCE said:

Tamb said:

Have to disagree.
I’m never in favour of punishing the many to control the few.

ban guns

note that if we do not do so, the frequency of domestic violence may decrease

Or increase. No threat to shoot so bash instead.

More people are killed with a brick or a knife anyway.

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

SCIENCE said:

ban guns

note that if we do not do so, the frequency of domestic violence may decrease

Or increase. No threat to shoot so bash instead.

More people are killed with a brick or a knife anyway.

In this country yes. In the USA….

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Or increase. No threat to shoot so bash instead.

More people are killed with a brick or a knife anyway.

In this country yes. In the USA….

We all know about the USA. They even leave guns where children can shoot their parents with them.

SCIENCE said:

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Ban alcohol.

Have to disagree.
I’m never in favour of punishing the many to control the few.

ban guns

note that if we do not do so, the frequency of domestic violence may decrease

Profit over lives, doesn’t save any lives.

We can ban alcohol consumption on an individual basis and the rest of society can go on drinking,
so we can still have a wine and alcohol industry and control the behaviours of the worst offenders.

Offences can vary depending on the proportion of the offence so some people may get 3 months some might longer etc
So it wont be banned for life but maybe some should be.

Has the domestic violence rate gone up with people staying at home?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Has the domestic violence rate gone up with people staying at home?

The reported number of concerned calls has increased.

Most important of all.

1. Getting people to completely trust the police. The legislation is there, it’s fast, it works.

mollwollfumble said:

Most important of all.

1. Getting people to completely trust the police. The legislation is there, it’s fast, it works.

legislation gets people to completely trust police ¿

SCIENCE said:

mollwollfumble said:

Most important of all.

1. Getting people to completely trust the police. The legislation is there, it’s fast, it works.

legislation gets people to completely trust police ¿

I think he means legislation is there to have the police intervene in domestic violence, but people do not always trust the police enough to get them involved.

Yikes.

First of all, the victim needs to believe they are a victim. Too many have no idea they are in a DV relationship.

Divine Angel said:

Yikes.

First of all, the victim needs to believe they are a victim. Too many have no idea they are in a DV relationship.

Having an understanding of the five common types of abuse would be a good start.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ways to reduce domestic violence

1 Education using emotional awareness

2 Life education to address rejection, jealousy, and other emotional negative values.

3 Life education teaching relationship skills

4 Counselling is charged with a violence offence

5 Redesigning living spaces with a her area, a his area and a shared area

Unless of course you’re talking about domestic violence towards pets.

The law regarding domestic abuse of pets and wild animals is horrible. The laws now against abuse of pets are no better than the laws against abuse of slaves in the deep south at the height of slavery.

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ways to reduce domestic violence

1 Education using emotional awareness

2 Life education to address rejection, jealousy, and other emotional negative values.

3 Life education teaching relationship skills

4 Counselling is charged with a violence offence

5 Redesigning living spaces with a her area, a his area and a shared area

Unless of course you’re talking about domestic violence towards pets.

The law regarding domestic abuse of pets and wild animals is horrible. The laws now against abuse of pets are no better than the laws against abuse of slaves in the deep south at the height of slavery.

$50 per emu for the emu run, wasn’t it

SCIENCE said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ways to reduce domestic violence

1 Education using emotional awareness

2 Life education to address rejection, jealousy, and other emotional negative values.

3 Life education teaching relationship skills

4 Counselling is charged with a violence offence

5 Redesigning living spaces with a her area, a his area and a shared area

Unless of course you’re talking about domestic violence towards pets.

The law regarding domestic abuse of pets and wild animals is horrible. The laws now against abuse of pets are no better than the laws against abuse of slaves in the deep south at the height of slavery.

$50 per emu for the emu run, wasn’t it

Laws on animal rights / protection needs improving.

Its the intent on cruelty that disturbs me the most

Those teens that throw rocks at a family of birds killing the male and leaving the female to look after the young

Shooting arrows at kangaroos and other horrible tortures, animal fighting etc.

Killing four hundred eagles over farming interests.

Yes they are weak laws inheriting unjust punishment.

Stronger laws would be good.

Laws on stealing animals from zoos and protected sanctuaries needs to be stronger.

Most idiots do not know how to feed them, adding animals cruelty and torment to the crime.

The “I know nothing” meme can be traced back to Socrates who noted that knowing nothing meant what he knew about the world, want humanity knew about the world, and what humanity didn’t know about the world. He probably drew the chart in the sand while teaching to other scholars.

Tau.Neutrino said:

SCIENCE said:

mollwollfumble said:

Unless of course you’re talking about domestic violence towards pets.

The law regarding domestic abuse of pets and wild animals is horrible. The laws now against abuse of pets are no better than the laws against abuse of slaves in the deep south at the height of slavery.

$50 per emu for the emu run, wasn’t it

Laws on animal rights / protection needs improving.

Its the intent on cruelty that disturbs me the most

Those teens that throw rocks at a family of birds killing the male and leaving the female to look after the young

Shooting arrows at kangaroos and other horrible tortures, animal fighting etc.

Killing four hundred eagles over farming interests.

Yes they are weak laws inheriting unjust punishment.

Stronger laws would be good.

I’ve said before, but worth repeating.

I knew someone who was starving their pet to death, leaving it chained up all the time, and giving it drinking water out of a plastic bag.

It was so hungry that it had been eating its own fur. A lot.

The pet was chained up on my land, so I took it to a vet. I took a huge amount of flak for taking the pet away from its owner. From the RSPCA who refused to sanction me taking the pet to a vet for evaluation. That’s theft and I could be fined for it. Even from the veterinary practice who confirmed that it was emaciated because, they claimed, they didn’t know why it was emaciated.

The council returned the pet to its abuser two days after I took it, in direct contravention of state law which says that an abused animal has to be held for 5 days before being returned to its abuser.

I found that there was no law against starving a pet to death. The only law was against physical violence against animals – eg. staging cock fights. And a law against selling a starving pet for money.

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

SCIENCE said:

$50 per emu for the emu run, wasn’t it

Laws on animal rights / protection needs improving.

Its the intent on cruelty that disturbs me the most

Those teens that throw rocks at a family of birds killing the male and leaving the female to look after the young

Shooting arrows at kangaroos and other horrible tortures, animal fighting etc.

Killing four hundred eagles over farming interests.

Yes they are weak laws inheriting unjust punishment.

Stronger laws would be good.

I’ve said before, but worth repeating.

I knew someone who was starving their pet to death, leaving it chained up all the time, and giving it drinking water out of a plastic bag.

It was so hungry that it had been eating its own fur. A lot.

The pet was chained up on my land, so I took it to a vet. I took a huge amount of flak for taking the pet away from its owner. From the RSPCA who refused to sanction me taking the pet to a vet for evaluation. That’s theft and I could be fined for it. Even from the veterinary practice who confirmed that it was emaciated because, they claimed, they didn’t know why it was emaciated.

The council returned the pet to its abuser two days after I took it, in direct contravention of state law which says that an abused animal has to be held for 5 days before being returned to its abuser.

I found that there was no law against starving a pet to death. The only law was against physical violence against animals – eg. staging cock fights. And a law against selling a starving pet for money.

are you sure? breeching of duty of care is an offence… starving an animal under your care would be a breech.

Arts said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Laws on animal rights / protection needs improving.

Its the intent on cruelty that disturbs me the most

Those teens that throw rocks at a family of birds killing the male and leaving the female to look after the young

Shooting arrows at kangaroos and other horrible tortures, animal fighting etc.

Killing four hundred eagles over farming interests.

Yes they are weak laws inheriting unjust punishment.

Stronger laws would be good.

I’ve said before, but worth repeating.

I knew someone who was starving their pet to death, leaving it chained up all the time, and giving it drinking water out of a plastic bag.

It was so hungry that it had been eating its own fur. A lot.

The pet was chained up on my land, so I took it to a vet. I took a huge amount of flak for taking the pet away from its owner. From the RSPCA who refused to sanction me taking the pet to a vet for evaluation. That’s theft and I could be fined for it. Even from the veterinary practice who confirmed that it was emaciated because, they claimed, they didn’t know why it was emaciated.

The council returned the pet to its abuser two days after I took it, in direct contravention of state law which says that an abused animal has to be held for 5 days before being returned to its abuser.

I found that there was no law against starving a pet to death. The only law was against physical violence against animals – eg. staging cock fights. And a law against selling a starving pet for money.

are you sure? breeching of duty of care is an offence… starving an animal under your care would be a breech.

breach,,, whatevs Shebs.

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

SCIENCE said:

$50 per emu for the emu run, wasn’t it

Laws on animal rights / protection needs improving.

Its the intent on cruelty that disturbs me the most

Those teens that throw rocks at a family of birds killing the male and leaving the female to look after the young

Shooting arrows at kangaroos and other horrible tortures, animal fighting etc.

Killing four hundred eagles over farming interests.

Yes they are weak laws inheriting unjust punishment.

Stronger laws would be good.

I’ve said before, but worth repeating.

I knew someone who was starving their pet to death, leaving it chained up all the time, and giving it drinking water out of a plastic bag.

It was so hungry that it had been eating its own fur. A lot.

The pet was chained up on my land, so I took it to a vet. I took a huge amount of flak for taking the pet away from its owner. From the RSPCA who refused to sanction me taking the pet to a vet for evaluation. That’s theft and I could be fined for it. Even from the veterinary practice who confirmed that it was emaciated because, they claimed, they didn’t know why it was emaciated.

The council returned the pet to its abuser two days after I took it, in direct contravention of state law which says that an abused animal has to be held for 5 days before being returned to its abuser.

I found that there was no law against starving a pet to death. The only law was against physical violence against animals – eg. staging cock fights. And a law against selling a starving pet for money.

Doesn’t make sense. RSPCA often intervene in cases of neglect, and their brief specifically includes it.

https://www.rspca.org.au/what-we-do/our-role-enforcing-law

Arts said:

Arts said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve said before, but worth repeating.

I knew someone who was starving their pet to death, leaving it chained up all the time, and giving it drinking water out of a plastic bag.

It was so hungry that it had been eating its own fur. A lot.

The pet was chained up on my land, so I took it to a vet. I took a huge amount of flak for taking the pet away from its owner. From the RSPCA who refused to sanction me taking the pet to a vet for evaluation. That’s theft and I could be fined for it. Even from the veterinary practice who confirmed that it was emaciated because, they claimed, they didn’t know why it was emaciated.

The council returned the pet to its abuser two days after I took it, in direct contravention of state law which says that an abused animal has to be held for 5 days before being returned to its abuser.

I found that there was no law against starving a pet to death. The only law was against physical violence against animals – eg. staging cock fights. And a law against selling a starving pet for money.

are you sure? breeching of duty of care is an offence… starving an animal under your care would be a breech.

breach,,, whatevs Shebs.

Just as long as you’re aware that I’m keeping on top of these things.

The concept of pair bonding appears to be a social construct and is not actually in human instinct.

Duck said:

The concept of pair bonding appears to be a social construct and is not actually in human instinct.

Or, only partially in human instinct. That notion can be overridden by other notions.

Michael V said:

Duck said:

The concept of pair bonding appears to be a social construct and is not actually in human instinct.

Or, only partially in human instinct. That notion can be overridden by other notions.

It possibly works better for some and not so much for others. But seeing as it by far the most common arrangement across many different cultures you’d have to conclude it is probably the most common. Singledom works for some, perhaps polygamy might work for others. Maybe people go through different phases in life where each might be more suitable for a time.

Michael V said:

Duck said:

The concept of pair bonding appears to be a social construct and is not actually in human instinct.

Or, only partially in human instinct. That notion can be overridden by other notions.

I think humans are serial monogamists. Obviously some people would have a higher, quicker need for a turn over in partners than others.

Duck said:

The concept of pair bonding appears to be a social construct and is not actually in human instinct.

Although it is often displayed in other animals. Ducks, for example.

did you know that a duck’s quack echos? conditions apply.

Duck said:

Michael V said:

Duck said:

The concept of pair bonding appears to be a social construct and is not actually in human instinct.

Or, only partially in human instinct. That notion can be overridden by other notions.

I think humans are serial monogamists. Obviously some people would have a higher, quicker need for a turn over in partners than others.  

“serial monogamists”

I wonder where I have heard this notion before?

;)

party_pants said:

Michael V said:

Duck said:

The concept of pair bonding appears to be a social construct and is not actually in human instinct.

Or, only partially in human instinct. That notion can be overridden by other notions.

It possibly works better for some and not so much for others. But seeing as it by far the most common arrangement across many different cultures you’d have to conclude it is probably the most common. Singledom works for some, perhaps polygamy might work for others. Maybe people go through different phases in life where each might be more suitable for a time.

Singledom works for some and rape does have an evolutionary advantage for some.

The bottom line with humans is, if you had a choice you would not be one!

Duck said:

The bottom line with humans is, if you had a choice you would not be one!

I like opposable thumbs.

Duck said:

The bottom line with humans is, if you had a choice you would not be one!

I think being human is the best choice.

Duck said:

party_pants said:

Michael V said:

Or, only partially in human instinct. That notion can be overridden by other notions.

It possibly works better for some and not so much for others. But seeing as it by far the most common arrangement across many different cultures you’d have to conclude it is probably the most common. Singledom works for some, perhaps polygamy might work for others. Maybe people go through different phases in life where each might be more suitable for a time.

Singledom works for some and rape does have an evolutionary advantage for some.

There have been several attempts to describe and compare societies according to where they were along a perceived evolutionary line. Draw a single line along a course that charts the social characteristic of your choice: Religion, marriage, technology, equality, education, health… whatever. The role of rape has not been considered, as far as I know, but I’m pretty sure the others have all been terribly lacking as predictors of societal success.

ChrispenEvan said:

Duck said:

The bottom line with humans is, if you had a choice you would not be one!

I think being human is the best choice.

Unless you could be Batman.

Rule 303 said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Duck said:

The bottom line with humans is, if you had a choice you would not be one!

I think being human is the best choice.

Unless you could be Batman.

nah, nah, nah, nah, no no.

Duck said:

The concept of pair bonding appears to be a social construct and is not actually in human instinct.

as concepts often are

but is there bonding happening, of pairs, of course there is

Rule 303 said:

Duck said:

party_pants said:

It possibly works better for some and not so much for others. But seeing as it by far the most common arrangement across many different cultures you’d have to conclude it is probably the most common. Singledom works for some, perhaps polygamy might work for others. Maybe people go through different phases in life where each might be more suitable for a time.

Singledom works for some and rape does have an evolutionary advantage for some.

There have been several attempts to describe and compare societies according to where they were along a perceived evolutionary line. Draw a single line along a course that charts the social characteristic of your choice: Religion, marriage, technology, equality, education, health… whatever. The role of rape has not been considered, as far as I know, but I’m pretty sure the others have all been terribly lacking as predictors of societal success.

societal success aside, evolution favours short term advantage. Humans are an incestuous, murderous species.

Duck said:

Rule 303 said:

Duck said:

Singledom works for some and rape does have an evolutionary advantage for some.

There have been several attempts to describe and compare societies according to where they were along a perceived evolutionary line. Draw a single line along a course that charts the social characteristic of your choice: Religion, marriage, technology, equality, education, health… whatever. The role of rape has not been considered, as far as I know, but I’m pretty sure the others have all been terribly lacking as predictors of societal success.

societal success aside, evolution favours short term advantage. Humans are an incestuous, murderous species.

As individuals, perhaps, but in groups we consistently put collaboration above evolutionary pressures.

i’d argue the human mind’s receptivity to concepts and shared constructions related are largely instinctive

transition said:

i’d argue the human mind’s receptivity to concepts and shared constructions related are largely instinctive

But not necessarily overriding.

Rule 303 said:

Duck said:

Rule 303 said:

There have been several attempts to describe and compare societies according to where they were along a perceived evolutionary line. Draw a single line along a course that charts the social characteristic of your choice: Religion, marriage, technology, equality, education, health… whatever. The role of rape has not been considered, as far as I know, but I’m pretty sure the others have all been terribly lacking as predictors of societal success.

societal success aside, evolution favours short term advantage. Humans are an incestuous, murderous species.

As individuals, perhaps, but in groups we consistently put collaboration above evolutionary pressures.

Maybe evolution and survival of the fittest works on a species level, and not just on an individual level competing against others of the same species.

Rule 303 said:

Duck said:

Rule 303 said:

There have been several attempts to describe and compare societies according to where they were along a perceived evolutionary line. Draw a single line along a course that charts the social characteristic of your choice: Religion, marriage, technology, equality, education, health… whatever. The role of rape has not been considered, as far as I know, but I’m pretty sure the others have all been terribly lacking as predictors of societal success.

societal success aside, evolution favours short term advantage. Humans are an incestuous, murderous species.

As individuals, perhaps, but in groups we consistently put collaboration above evolutionary pressures.

I think that is predominately where pair bonding comes from. The best, worst option for the group.

Duck said:

transition said:

i’d argue the human mind’s receptivity to concepts and shared constructions related are largely instinctive

But not necessarily overriding.

my view is the terms instinct and instinctive have a grubby polarity about them, lends to pointless arguments potentially

consider native intelligence instead, much more useful, highly measurable

transition said:

Duck said:

transition said:

i’d argue the human mind’s receptivity to concepts and shared constructions related are largely instinctive

But not necessarily overriding.

my view is the terms instinct and instinctive have a grubby polarity about them, lends to pointless arguments potentially

consider native intelligence instead, much more useful, highly measurable

Although it may be an unethical study to do. If a group of  human babies were brought up in a more instinctive environment for a primate, without any sociatel constructs placed on them.  Natural Instinctive behaviour could be studied. Humans might get to know themselves.

Duck said:

transition said:

Duck said:

But not necessarily overriding.

my view is the terms instinct and instinctive have a grubby polarity about them, lends to pointless arguments potentially

consider native intelligence instead, much more useful, highly measurable

Although it may be an unethical study to do. If a group of  human babies were brought up in a more instinctive environment for a primate, without any sociatel constructs placed on them.  Natural Instinctive behaviour could be studied. Humans might get to know themselves.

what if i’m more mammal than primate?

interesting question for you, perhaps..

are you more or less primate when asleep?

transition said:

Duck said:

transition said:

my view is the terms instinct and instinctive have a grubby polarity about them, lends to pointless arguments potentially

consider native intelligence instead, much more useful, highly measurable

Although it may be an unethical study to do. If a group of  human babies were brought up in a more instinctive environment for a primate, without any sociatel constructs placed on them.  Natural Instinctive behaviour could be studied. Humans might get to know themselves.

what if i’m more mammal than primate?

interesting question for you, perhaps..

are you more or less primate when asleep?

Getting in the area of human consciousness.

Duck said:

transition said:

Duck said:

Although it may be an unethical study to do. If a group of  human babies were brought up in a more instinctive environment for a primate, without any sociatel constructs placed on them.  Natural Instinctive behaviour could be studied. Humans might get to know themselves.

what if i’m more mammal than primate?

interesting question for you, perhaps..

are you more or less primate when asleep?

Getting in the area of human consciousness. 

I was wondering if you did your suggested isolation experiment, whether you’d be applying your notions of primate to the subjects in the study

transition said:

Duck said:

transition said:

what if i’m more mammal than primate?

interesting question for you, perhaps..

are you more or less primate when asleep?

Getting in the area of human consciousness. 

I was wondering if you did your suggested isolation experiment, whether you’d be applying your notions of primate to the subjects in the study

Only minimal input should be given

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

mollwollfumble said:

Most important of all.

1. Getting people to completely trust the police. The legislation is there, it’s fast, it works.

legislation gets people to completely trust police ¿

I think he means legislation is there to have the police intervene in domestic violence, but people do not always trust the police enough to get them involved.

The police cannot be trusted implicitly. Nor can the courts for that matter but they are all we have apart from taking responsibility ourselves. Which is ultimately the best course of action.

Arts said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Laws on animal rights / protection needs improving.

Its the intent on cruelty that disturbs me the most

Those teens that throw rocks at a family of birds killing the male and leaving the female to look after the young

Shooting arrows at kangaroos and other horrible tortures, animal fighting etc.

Killing four hundred eagles over farming interests.

Yes they are weak laws inheriting unjust punishment.

Stronger laws would be good.

I’ve said before, but worth repeating.

I knew someone who was starving their pet to death, leaving it chained up all the time, and giving it drinking water out of a plastic bag.

It was so hungry that it had been eating its own fur. A lot.

The pet was chained up on my land, so I took it to a vet. I took a huge amount of flak for taking the pet away from its owner. From the RSPCA who refused to sanction me taking the pet to a vet for evaluation. That’s theft and I could be fined for it. Even from the veterinary practice who confirmed that it was emaciated because, they claimed, they didn’t know why it was emaciated.

The council returned the pet to its abuser two days after I took it, in direct contravention of state law which says that an abused animal has to be held for 5 days before being returned to its abuser.

I found that there was no law against starving a pet to death. The only law was against physical violence against animals – eg. staging cock fights. And a law against selling a starving pet for money.

are you sure? breeching of duty of care is an offence… starving an animal under your care would be a breech.

Yes. I’ve seen people charged and convicted for starving animals.

had a strange notion last night, not really to do with the thread subject, whatever the idea it left me with the proposition, the possibility, that humans are more like domestic dogs than like each other, if I could be allowed to say that and mean it in a non-disparaging way

it’s not that it’s entirely true, necessarily, but it may be substantially true in ways, true enough to be ignored out of existence, uncomfortably true enough to be forcefully rejected from human reality, the good work of consciousness

transition said:

had a strange notion last night, not really to do with the thread subject, whatever the idea it left me with the proposition, the possibility, that humans are more like domestic dogs than like each other, if I could be allowed to say that and mean it in a non-disparaging way

it’s not that it’s entirely true, necessarily, but it may be substantially true in ways, true enough to be ignored out of existence, uncomfortably true enough to be forcefully rejected from human reality, the good work of consciousness

We are but animals.

transition said:

had a strange notion last night, not really to do with the thread subject, whatever the idea it left me with the proposition, the possibility, that humans are more like domestic dogs than like each other, if I could be allowed to say that and mean it in a non-disparaging way

it’s not that it’s entirely true, necessarily, but it may be substantially true in ways, true enough to be ignored out of existence, uncomfortably true enough to be forcefully rejected from human reality, the good work of consciousness

I’d like to hear what Larry has to say about this

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ways to reduce domestic violence

1 Education using emotional awareness

2 Life education to address rejection, jealousy, and other emotional negative values.

3 Life education teaching relationship skills

4 Counselling is charged with a violence offence

5 Redesigning living spaces with a her area, a his area and a shared area

Every abuser I’ve ever known
was a victim of abuse themselves, usually as a child
IOW it’s most likely generational.

How to “fix it”?

I doano… Get a Time Machine
and solve the age-old moral conundrum about Killing Hitler? :-P
Seriously…
Good Luck punishing a person(child) for abusing THEIR child that’s not yet born?

Perhaps the answer lies in ‘Fixing’ the abused party in order to Break The CYCLE of Abuse.

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

mollwollfumble said:

Most important of all.

1. Getting people to completely trust the police. The legislation is there, it’s fast, it works.

legislation gets people to completely trust police ¿

I think he means legislation is there to have the police intervene in domestic violence, but people do not always trust the police enough to get them involved.

Here’s a TwoFer:

My talking cat (Miss Thing) ((she had many names))
2 of which were “Miss Took” & “Miss Appropriated”,
because she was Kit-Napped from an abusive owner.

The owner knew who took her, and sent the police to
our apartment to recover & return her wence she came,
…but upon hearing the circumstances, he handed her
back – telling us to say he’d never been there. ;-)

Sometimes cops can be trusted to use their own judgement.

btw:
When Ted found her living in the small hallway, he asked her;
“Do you want to come live with me?”
…and she answered, “YEAH!”

Smartest damned cat I’ve ever cohabitated with. :)
ah.. and she trusted us to keep “her secret”.

As I said

The gauntlet

If you are prepared to dish out violence you must be prepared to receive it. Where the carrot fails the stick succeeds.

As to the pair bonding

it might indeed be evolution driven
in as much as successful rearing of off spring
capable of surviving long enough to reproduce in turn.

iow, humans require nurturing for a very long time compared
to most animals, and the best way to accomplish that successfully is
to have two parental units, one to protect it and hunt for sufficient fatty foods
while the other nurses, cares for it, fosters the brain fed on a rich fatty diet to develop.

As for changing partners,
There’s where the (in)famous “7 Year Itch” comes into play
since a male unit is actually necessary to fend for an offspring
approximately 7 years, it’s evolutionarily advantageous for a male
to go forth and spread his seed to a younger female unit as often as
possible (in order to raise other successful offspring) every seven years.

If not for the artificial contractual convention of “marriage” men would do so.
I can only assume the contractual pair bonding became necessary in order to
survive in a society too unwieldy to brook too many free roaming randy males.

I suppose it’s yet another a example of becoming a victim of one’s own success. ;-)

Ogmog said:

As to the pair bonding

it might indeed be evolution driven
in as much as successful rearing of off spring
capable of surviving long enough to reproduce in turn.

iow, humans require nurturing for a very long time compared
to most animals, and the best way to accomplish that successfully is
to have two parental units, one to protect it and hunt for sufficient fatty foods
while the other nurses, cares for it, fosters the brain fed on a rich fatty diet to develop.

As for changing partners,
There’s where the (in)famous “7 Year Itch” comes into play
since a male unit is actually necessary to fend for an offspring
approximately 7 years, it’s evolutionarily advantageous for a male
to go forth and spread his seed to a younger female unit as often as
possible (in order to raise other successful offspring) every seven years.

If not for the artificial contractual convention of “marriage” men would do so.
I can only assume the contractual pair bonding became necessary in order to
survive in a society too unwieldy to brook too many free roaming randy males.

I suppose it’s yet another a example of becoming a victim of one’s own success. ;-)

The pair bonding model appears to advantage the female breeding with the “fittest” male but stay in a “relationship” with Mr reliable and dependable, even in the case when these are two separate individuals.

part of the pair bond thing is backup, much the same as a person has two eyes, two kidneys, that sort of thing

not just for breeding, but very importantly related breeding, it applies all sorts of everyday possibilities, duplication has advantages, and particularly the minimum number of duplication, which is 2 of

Duck said:

Ogmog said:

As to the pair bonding

it might indeed be evolution driven
in as much as successful rearing of off spring
capable of surviving long enough to reproduce in turn.

iow, humans require nurturing for a very long time compared
to most animals, and the best way to accomplish that successfully is
to have two parental units, one to protect it and hunt for sufficient fatty foods
while the other nurses, cares for it, fosters the brain fed on a rich fatty diet to develop.

As for changing partners,
There’s where the (in)famous “7 Year Itch” comes into play
since a male unit is actually necessary to fend for an offspring
approximately 7 years, it’s evolutionarily advantageous for a male
to go forth and spread his seed to a younger female unit as often as
possible (in order to raise other successful offspring) every seven years.

If not for the artificial contractual convention of “marriage” men would do so.
I can only assume the contractual pair bonding became necessary in order to
survive in a society too unwieldy to brook too many free roaming randy males.

I suppose it’s yet another a example of becoming a victim of one’s own success. ;-)

The pair bonding model appears to advantage the female breeding with the “fittest” male but stay in a “relationship” with Mr reliable and dependable, even in the case when these are two separate individuals. 

I don’t think it has much to do with it, although obviously there would be favorites. The idea was to have as large a family unit as possible, which usually meant several wives if the alpha male was a good enough provider, but it would not all fall into his lap as other members would lessen the load and hopefully provide for him in his latter years.

PermeateFree said:

Duck said:

Ogmog said:

As to the pair bonding

it might indeed be evolution driven
in as much as successful rearing of off spring
capable of surviving long enough to reproduce in turn.

iow, humans require nurturing for a very long time compared
to most animals, and the best way to accomplish that successfully is
to have two parental units, one to protect it and hunt for sufficient fatty foods
while the other nurses, cares for it, fosters the brain fed on a rich fatty diet to develop.

As for changing partners,
There’s where the (in)famous “7 Year Itch” comes into play
since a male unit is actually necessary to fend for an offspring
approximately 7 years, it’s evolutionarily advantageous for a male
to go forth and spread his seed to a younger female unit as often as
possible (in order to raise other successful offspring) every seven years.

If not for the artificial contractual convention of “marriage” men would do so.
I can only assume the contractual pair bonding became necessary in order to
survive in a society too unwieldy to brook too many free roaming randy males.

I suppose it’s yet another a example of becoming a victim of one’s own success. ;-)

The pair bonding model appears to advantage the female breeding with the “fittest” male but stay in a “relationship” with Mr reliable and dependable, even in the case when these are two separate individuals. 

I don’t think it has much to do with it, although obviously there would be favorites. The idea was to have as large a family unit as possible, which usually meant several wives if the alpha male was a good enough provider, but it would not all fall into his lap as other members would lessen the load and hopefully provide for him in his latter years.

On what page of the bible does it say that?

Duck said:

PermeateFree said:

Duck said:

The pair bonding model appears to advantage the female breeding with the “fittest” male but stay in a “relationship” with Mr reliable and dependable, even in the case when these are two separate individuals. 

I don’t think it has much to do with it, although obviously there would be favorites. The idea was to have as large a family unit as possible, which usually meant several wives if the alpha male was a good enough provider, but it would not all fall into his lap as other members would lessen the load and hopefully provide for him in his latter years.

On what page of the bible does it say that?

It was way before the bible, and just human nature with a large spoon of survival.

PermeateFree said:

Duck said:

PermeateFree said:

I don’t think it has much to do with it, although obviously there would be favorites. The idea was to have as large a family unit as possible, which usually meant several wives if the alpha male was a good enough provider, but it would not all fall into his lap as other members would lessen the load and hopefully provide for him in his latter years.

On what page of the bible does it say that?

It was way before the bible, and just human nature with a large spoon of survival.

imagination?

Duck said:

PermeateFree said:

Duck said:

The pair bonding model appears to advantage the female breeding with the “fittest” male but stay in a “relationship” with Mr reliable and dependable, even in the case when these are two separate individuals. 

I don’t think it has much to do with it, although obviously there would be favorites. The idea was to have as large a family unit as possible, which usually meant several wives if the alpha male was a good enough provider, but it would not all fall into his lap as other members would lessen the load and hopefully provide for him in his latter years.

On what page of the bible does it say that?

Who is this duck anyway?