Interesting that you did not consider your advice worth taking.

Oooooh. Zing.

I didnt consider it to prove my theory is true.

Eh, not so much. A grievance can be solved, but a percieved grievance is almost always unsolvable. You can't come to terms with a person who denies there is anything to come to terms about.

That is less about speech, more about perception and action.

Lets just put everyone in shackles, stick them in dark cave with minimal sensory input, light a nice campfire nearby, and see what happens.

The espousal of a theory is not a proof.

How utterly impractical/unrealistic. Even if people did shut up, the build up of unreleased emotion would eventually cause a blow-up one way or another.

"the build up of unreleased emotion would eventually cause a blow-up one way or another."

It already happens. My idea was complete sarcasm. See the current wars. The people who could solve it, talk and talk and talk, but nothing changes.

People do listen, but disagree. Perhaps not listening would be the real solution to stopping aggression. I call it selective hearing.

You seem to be implying that if people stopped discussing the wars the wars would stop. Your logic is beyond me.

We should all fight to end war. . . ;-)

People don't have to talk to each other to be incited to aggression. All they have to do is look at each other the wrong way. This part of human nature hasn't changed in the last few million years.

The problem can be alleviated with drugs or a lobotomy.

we should "circumcise" tongues at birth.

Shutting up stops the communication and that is not going to do any good...unless you are shutting up so that you can write about it and send to someone that matters (such as an authority of the law) then no, I disagree that shutting up is going to do any good, only more harm.