Quote: If you truly, "truly question" that, read the post you took it from.... I explained what I meant by this. Thoroughly.
"Bad stock" also refers to negative behavioral traits which are heritable. Anyone who only considers the 'type' is not really a good breeder either, by the commonly accepted definition, as there are many issues beyond 'type' which ought not be bred on with. Neurotic/negative social behaviors are one of those issues.
Quote: After thousands of years of domestication, yes, it is bad stock that are human aggressive. When a bad trait is heritable, yes, it's bad genetics. Thankfully there are many good males to breed from which are not wantonly and unjustifiably violent.
You may be interested to learn that excessive aggression is a trait proven to be linked to subfertile males. It's long been a belief in the cattle industry, upheld by anecdotal evidence, and a few years back it was officially proven. I find it is true across the species. Excessive aggression in males has always been, I believe, a breeding strategy of the sub-par male. I breed a few different species of animals and this has always held true in my experience as well as many other people's. I've always noticed the alpha males are calmer and the females seek them out, and they're always far more fertile than the 'angry boys'.
I expect my males to fight among themselves, as do my females, because that's natural, and don't worry, they all know what gender they are. But at no point is human aggression anything else than a bad trait and often a symptom of a bad breeder in past. And it is heritable behavior. Excessive aggression to other flock members or infants is also a negative trait we bred into them. Under natural circumstances they can sort out differences in the majority of cases with a few pecks or kicks, no bloodshed. But the dumber they are, the more violent they are, generally.
We aren't roosters or turkeys, so if they are confused about what species they are, they're too stupid to breed, in my opinion. Plenty of good males to choose from which won't harm a human, as necessary as some breeders view this trait to be, lol. They know we're not turkeys and chickens, just as they know dogs, cats, cows, horses, other poultry, etc are not the same species as them. Some exceptionally dumb ones do think we're the same species, but I cull them. Stupidity ought not breed. Unfortunately, it does. Too often.
Quote: It's "Ritalin" not "redelin" and human aggression is something we bred into them, not a natural trait, and not something inherent in males or females just by virtue of gender or age or whatever the excuse is.
After thousands of years of domesticity, and having bred it out of basically every breed, it's a bad trait only propagated by those who think it's natural, like yourself.
As for Ritalin in boys, or girls, a lot of kids are hyperactive because of various issues ranging from ASDs to food colorings. Many kids who don't need medicating get medicated, often as a matter of convenience for overworked parents. Kids when healthy are active, not just boys, and all hyperactive kids are not "just being little boys". Too broad a generalization there; after all, by your generalized statement, one might deduce that hyperactive little girls on Ritalin are being prevented from being "little boys" and Ritalin-ed into being "wimps".
Being a vicious bully is never, ever, a sign of a good male (or female) worth breeding. Not in humans, and not in animals. I do not buy from those who subscribe to that mentality; often they have some nasty ideas about what a 'real man' is and project their concept of their masculinity onto their roosters, dogs, etc and expect all males to be violent bullies. The man that believes good roosters beat the hens is the man who also beats his wife, in my experience.
Note: I am not accusing you or anyone here of that, just speaking of how a person's breeding philosophy often carries over into his personal life from my direct experiences with that sort. Such beliefs about what is "natural" in "the wild" are often those of an uneducated mind. I've studied animals for years but those with the most violently inclined opinions on what a wild male does are often those who have done no study, just watched a handful of cheap documentaries narrated by often woefully ignorant people. For some, the romance-novel concept of a male is preferential to the actual reality of the spectrum of male animal behavior, which is often too peaceful for their liking.
Each to their own. If people were honest about whether or not their males attack humans, it would be simple for those who believe this is a bad trait to avoid it, and those who believe it is a good trait to breed it on.
