So a human being that has trained their brain to respond to conflict with violence first won't most likely resort to violence when another conflict arises?
No one is talking about training your brain to react with violence in this case or indiscriminately. Clearly there are times one wants to be trained to react that way reflexively - certain threats that need it, because waiting to consider if it is right will get you killed. But that carries the awesome responsibility of judicious use. Sometimes reacting to conflict via confrontation - physical if necessary and possible - is strategic, a considered option. Sometimes it is the only language, the only currency that is accepted at that dance. I suspect the NFL can be like that if one iaroundhd folks like Incognito. No one is saying that one should always just kick ass on anyone who pisses them off, but the strategic use of violence, threat oviolencece or intimidation is sometimes a viable option.In a case like this one there comes a time when one has to decide whether they can live with themselves if they keep walking away from it. Turning the other cheek might work for some people and Messiahs, some may think that being meek will leave them with their just inheritance. If they can live that way, then more power to them. But some people could not look themselves in the eye tomorrow knowing that walked away from it; some would rather see it end today than face that tomorrow. Life is not all about quantity - living to see another day - it is also about quality. There are some lives that some people might not find worth living. It is an example of the wussification of America that we have come to accept that conflict avoidance and living to enjoy another sheepish day is the only acceptable approach.
So about what I posted. Would a human being that has trained their brain to respond to conflict with violence first most likely resort to violence when another conflict arises?
Use this only to report spam, harassment, fighting, or rude content.