Ok...so , on a synthesis. Recently , i've been trying to learn some stuff via pdf archives. In one of em i found a peculiar definition of violence that i wanted to share.
" Violence: Attitude or behaviour that consist in a violation of the human being ( or a deprivation) that is essencial as a person. (physical, psychical, moral, rights, liberties) ".
Leaving on the sides examples of these " It can be executed by a person, an institution (prison) or a structural situation (laboral explotation, social injustice, ethnocentrism, etc...)"
Which basically means that a deprivation of a human right is a form of violence such as censorship in freedom of speech. Which got me kinda confused and doubt the verosimilitude/precision of the text. So i wanted to know what are y'all opinions. Is this the proper definition?

That's an awfully specific definition for a word as versatile as this. Seems like the text is talking about human rights violation, not violence in general.

Is it a proper definition? No, not really, but it isn't wrong in a sense that you can define any word in a way that you want to fit your agenda

Well Violence comes from something that is Violent. And that is an Adjective. And Adjectives can never be Objective or have ONE factual definition. It's up to your opinion of what is and what isn't. So objectively defining an Adjective in complete detail is impossible.

The best we can do is vaguely come up with a concept of what the vast majority of Humans believe "Violent" or "Violence" means or is.

Violence: A Word used to describe a subjective level of behavior or activity that is too aggressive, disorderly, immoral, assertive, or powerful.

Violent:A Word used to describe something or someone that behaves in a subjectively high level of aggression, disorder, immorality, assertiveness, or power.

The angry dog is quite violent.

The storm violently tore through the town.

Violence is a current problem in our word.

I think it'd be something like that, I think what's important about defining violence is including that living things, inanimate things, and nature can act violently as well. As Violent can be as simple as describing a movement or behavior.

As well as including that Violent is subjective. What is violent could differ from person to person, society to society, and country to country.

No one can objectively claim anything to be violent.

When there is broad agreement on a matter though, such as the immorality of eating babies, we can start to make objective claims on concepts/issues classically considered to be subjective.

Since this is an epistemological question - 'How do we find truth?' - it is also relevant to examine the definition of truth. What does it mean for something to be true - Is there a moral component to this? Sam Harris or Jordan Peterson (or somewhere in-between)

Where does having a divergent conception of what violence is rank on the 'subjective agreement' scale? If eating babies ranks highly on the scale and believing pineapple on pizza is good ranks lowly, what do we think the concept of violence scores? I think we'd probably agree with each other on most points about what violence is, and I reckon the broader population would probably agree with each-other also.

If you and I accept the agreed upon standard, socially-constructed meaning of violence as our baseline, then we can begin to construct a scenario in which something could be objectively considered to be violent. Whaddaya say?

Violence is nature's natural selection, only the strong and intelligent survive.

Everyone is Violent, it's just a survival instinct i suppose in some circumstances.

So going by your logic school shootings are natural selection? I don't think those two really go hand in hand

It depends if the violence is controlled, for example in a boxing ring where you have a ref and everything to make sure it doesn't get TOO out of hand. But if it is like a street fight, or something (uncontrolled) I do not think it is acceptable.

They do go hand in hand.
And yes school shooting is a shot for psycho/violent people to be the natural selected.
Natural selection doesn't usually pick those that are nice people.
for other animals for example lions, whichever kills other lions gets to be the natural selected lion.

It would be the same for us humans if there wasn't police, and the fact that humans are smart enough to work together.
psychos/violent people would also be the natural selected people, just like how it is for most carnivores.

That's both an incredible misunderstanding of natural selection and an absolutely false assessment of the fitness of violent/psychotic people. Well done.

Natural selection is the name for the process whereby living things who are better adapted to their environments tend to breed more and survive longer. The longer you survive and the more offspring you create, the 'fitter' you are. Natural selection is not "I keel more animal, i am superior."

There's two main points that completely invalidate the idea that psychotic and violent people, such as school shooters, are more fit. The first is that natural selection isn't a simulation. It isn't a guess at how well an individual would survive alone in Africa 15,000 years ago with a sharpened bone and some rocks. It's an active process that's happening now, in the modern world.

For the second point, let's look at a hypothetical person named Jimmy. Jimmy is a violent person with psychotic tendencies. After getting into some trouble at school, Jimmy decides to resort to something that no one should ever, ever resort to. He gets a gun, brings it to school, and does something terrible. Actions have consequences, and there's only three ways this can end:

1): Jimmy gets arrested and put behind bars. Because he is imprisoned, he is unable to find a physical partner, very likely for the rest of his life. Jimmy is very unfit because he is unable to breed.

2): Jimmy is killed; either in a shoot out, by capital punishment, or by his own hand. Jimmy is extremely unfit because he is dead.

3): Jimmy, against all odds (literally), gets away with it. He's watched some action movies lately and learned to escape and lay low. The kind of life he's stuck with greatly increases his chances of getting killed, and makes it nearly impossible to safely have offspring. Jimmy is very unfit because the chances of him surviving and breeding have lowered dramatically.

No matter what happens, the result is Jimmy's fitness being lowered. He is not favored by natural selection.
This hypothetical scenario can be applied to just about every situation involving someone committing a violent act. In the modern world, being violent does not make you fit.

There's also a much simpler way of looking at it: If psychopathy and/or violent nature was favored by natural selection, there would be a lot more psychopathic and/or violent people.