# ??Misconceptions about preventing and doing violence??



## BLACK LION (May 13, 2009)

I would like to share this becuase its very important to me to do so and it is articulated better than I have been able to.   It has been a topic of discussion and confusion so I hope this helps.


*"Preventing Violence vs. Doing Violence *




_*Two Very Different Things*

Obviously, right? When stated in opposition like that, it's self-evident. And yet, I get enough feedback to tell me it's still fuzzy in most people's heads. Nearly everyone we train shows up looking for the former -- they want to prevent violence from happening to themselves -- while only paying lip service to the latter.

If given the choice, sane people would rather prevent violence than do it to another. This is fine as long as everyone understands the difference between the two.
__...
Understanding that what people really want is an easy, painless way of preventing violence from happening, rather than to learn how to be the one doing it, cleared up a lot of misunderstanding for me as an instructor. It's much easier for me to communicate when I know this is the baseline assumption.
_

_From the other side, it's important to make it clear that there is no physical action that makes you safe -- physical action is not the path to safety, it's the path to ruin him. If you want to prevent violence, be smart and use your social skills. But once the violence starts, the only thing that's going to change the situation in your favor is hurting him. Confuse the two at your own peril."

_Full article HERE.


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 14, 2009)

I agree with you for the most part. The only thing I have an issue with is the method for stopping an attack. I have no problem with the lethality of combat. If a man tries to do serious harm to you, kill him if you must. I have no qualms about that. The only thing I would say is that people instictivly protect their vitals (albiet poorly, if not properly trained), so these targets are not necessarily as easy to hit as some might think. That is why I would say that tactics must be applied to ensure victory.


----------



## seasoned (May 14, 2009)

After reading the op I'm not sure I can answer, if in fact there is an answer, or if a comment will suffice. It sounds like we can teach someone to posture well, show them how to give some attitude when needed, and even teach them physical action to stop an attack. But, the bottom line is, can you truly teach someone to be truly violent. For sure, we can teach someone to be violent, which are just actions, but to teach them to drop down to the level of the attacker in respect to their commitment to destroy you, may be a different story. Everyone for the most part, when needed, wants to stop violent by some means, but in doing so they need to become violent themselves. Is the everyday person, entering a training hall, there to learn to become violent, if in fact you can learn it. Or are they looking for a means to stop someone else's violent actions, not realizing they have to become violent themselves. Am I understanding the op, or am I off tract?


----------



## Brian King (May 14, 2009)

There is a temptation to view human interaction sort of like a math or scientific problem. Where you can, like a pie, divide it off into pieces then dissect each piece very carefully and minutely. It seems to be a natural method of discovery and exploration but it has a flaw in my opinion. If you divide up a pie to examine each piece separately when you try to put the pie back together you can easily have a mess. People tend to get stuck on that piece that fits into their mold of view. They give that piece of the equation much more importance than the other pieces that might call into question their truths, or provide argument to them. Providing more focus on one might not be a bad thing if it can be remembered that it is just one part of a whole. Focusing on one part and understanding that part does not mean understanding of the whole. Focusing on one part and taking the understanding of that small part and shoe horning that understanding or truth to fit all the other parts rarely if ever works no matter how satisfying to the ego that it may be.

The article was well written albeit using emotionally charged words to try to set up an argument to prove a point. It seems that he (I do not know who wrote the article or in what context the thoughts were presented) divided up a pie into two pieces. Then said that there are those who look at piece A and ignore piece B do so at their own peril (which I agree with) and articulated why you have to understand piece B. But, in my opinion the author gets stuck in piece B and does not see piece C,D,E,F or G for example. Stating the piece of writing they way the author did in that B is the only answer, is doing exactly what the author claims others are doing in misunderstanding, denying piece B the authors apparent favorite. He divides up the pie into two large pieces, saying this half is merely ok but THIS half over here is for winners degrading the skills and understanding that the other half requires. In my opinion overly focusing on one piece while dismissing the others is an ego filled albeit natural error and one that can easily lead to as much peril as totally ignoring a piece of the question/answer. 

Again, I do not know the context of the original piece, why it was written or what it was trying to answer. It reads like a post in response to others and from taking a lot of heat. Perhaps there are other articles/posts or pieces of this article that go into other aspects (pieces C,D,E etc) I dont know, I have tried to read it like a stand alone article and I read it as a there are two answers and this one is correct and the other is dangerous, which in my opinion is sometimes correct and sometimes not so much. 

There is an understated danger in the study of violence from a fearful outlook, some shrink from the fear and go into denial while others go to the other extreme and wear the violence on their bodies and minds like a shield against the fear. In my opinion violence is not a shield or armor it is merely a tool but often a greed forms that feeds the ego in response to the fear (with both extrems) but in reality an overly feed ego is easy to break and the fear/anger remains. 

My apologies for any lack of clarity of my post. I am training far from home and time is an issue LOL as well as exhaustion.

Warmest regards
Brian King


----------



## GBlues (May 14, 2009)

I like Chris. I've seen a few videos of him talking, and he seems like a pretty straight forward guy. I've read some of his other posts, and I would have to agree with him more often than not. I like the slice of the pie comment from Brian but let me say this. I think that you have misinterpretted that piece of literature, and let me tell you why. He isn't saying that you shouldn't practice social skills, to avoid violence. That is as you termed slice A. He on the contrary says that you should practice those skills. However, his slice B is the flip side. When all of your avoidance skills, and de-escalation protocols have failed you and somebody is doing violence to you, it's too late to prevent it. You can't your already in it. So his slice B answer is, you have to be the one doing the violence. Once your there, you have to be the one delivering damaging strikes to vital targets. Like he said, you have to be willing to kick the guy when he's down. You have to put him in a non-fuctional state.  Now that could many any number of things that I won't go into here at the moment. But, The reality is, to prevent violence you must avoid it. IF you can't avoid it, your either doing the violence, or it's getting done to you. It really is that simple. THere really are only two slices of the pie on this issue.  Now if you wanted to discuss social and anti-social violence well, that is a whole other pie. THe same with social vs. a-social violence. And chris deals with Social vs. A-social violence. THose guys at TFT don't care about social violence, or anti-social violence. THey worry about the a-social stuff.


----------



## BLACK LION (May 14, 2009)

This is relevant becuase so many people have a misconception about these two subjects and there are many contradictions out there.  I feel that it completes the task in clearing up the differences between the two as well as provides insight into normally uncharted territory with most "reality based self defense practices"...  

However... I never bet it all on one hand...  and I never put my faith in trust in a single "doctrine"...   I merely absorb whats essential for me along the way and continue along my path.


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 14, 2009)

We all try to prevent violence by such passive things as locking doors and windows. Burglar alarms, dogs, etc... We lock our car all the time when away from home to.

But, I find the surest way to stop violence, actual in-the-face violence, is with counter violence. And the violence usually has to be more than what was used on you in order to overcome it. It must be swift to. 

I am not at all ashamed of it. No apology for the counter-violence is needed, expected, or desired. Nor guilt. 

I remember the old anti-war slogan, "What if they gave a war and nobody showed up." Well the answer is, "What if they gave a war and only one side showed up!"

And that is why one learns to do violence. Not because you like it, not because they deserve it, not because you want revenge. It's used on those who would do wrong on peaceful people. 

Deaf


----------



## Chris Parker (May 15, 2009)

Absolutely. I have always felt that the most compassionate and humane thing I can do in situations when faced with a person who uses violence to put themselves over other people is to convince them that that is a less-than-perfect strategy. And that is achieved, often, by utilising violence in order to demonstrate to the individual(s) in question that it is not the be-all end-all.

The concept goes that if all I do is stop them hurting me, and I escape safely, I haven't done anything to potentially protect the next person this thug wants to inflict their will upon. So, it can be a more humane thing to stop them being able to do it to another person. It can be a more compassionate thing to indicate to them that their life could possibly go another way, unless they wished to meet another who is better at violence than them. This could be a simple knock-out, or broken bones, sometimes even just a violent emotional assault (out-posturing them). These are all forms of violence, and each are calibrated to different situations and opponents.

But in the end, I firmly believe that there are as many people out there better than me as there are that I am better than, so I limit my physical encounters to an absolute minimum. That said, when it's time, there is no hesitation. And no question that I am doing the correct thing ethically, morally, and rightly. And that, of course, is self-regulated, all responsibility being mine.


----------



## Brian King (May 15, 2009)

I apologize, I do not know who Chris is and have never read or watched his stuff as far as I know and I have no idea what or who those guys at TFT are. I am fortunately training out of the country right now so my free time is at a minimum and cannot afford the time to research. 

*Gblues wrote*


> THere really are only two slices of the pie on this issue.


 
I disagree and believe that you are possibly limiting yourself by only exploring the two options that are being laid out, there are others.

Perhaps we may be talking semantics here? How do you all that see just two sides describe the violence that you are advocating?

I have watched demonstrations and participated in seminars where the experts in dealing with an attack would shout, make war faces growl and attack with extreme passion/rage. They counter attack often based off of fear and ego and this is what I am reading in the OP and other posts/threads along the same lines. This is certainly a valid tool but for me it is not that effective of a one although very easy to learn and to harness. I wonder what is left if the attacker is even more violent or enraged and the violence offered as a counter proves to be not enough? Learning to deal with violence by becoming more violent leads to a spiral that is often unhealthy. The same results (ending the attack whether that means convincing the attacker to attack or continue the attack goes against their best interest or temporally/permanently crippling them or killing them) can be obtained using compassion understanding and respect. A calm professional comportment rather than a righteously enraged defender. If someone comes to me looking for conflict and neither my pride or ego is involved nor my fear then it is just work, just movement to me (in truth it is prayer for me), there is no rage no excess emotion, there is no feeding of the ego or reinforcing fear. As long as I am righteous and try to do only whatever is needed it is different than the violence I read and see some martial artists doing even if the attackers end up in the same hospital room. One way is healing for both the attackers and the defender and the other is in my opinion often destructive for both the attackers and the defender. It takes understanding and practice but is worthwhile to explore and it is another option to the supposedly two sided coin offered in the OP. Your mileage may vary.


Regards
Brian King


----------



## BLACK LION (May 15, 2009)

Meeting violence with 3x the ferocity is a *Godsend. *
Plain and simple. It is not some downward spiral of unhealthy behavior. 
Most often it is deviod of the superficial ego and the action is selfless in essence and execution.   

Most people see violence ae "evil"... I as well as many others see it as "counter-evil" and merely  ultimate physical force or work the we were put here to do when its time...if its ever time.  
I feel it must be a neutral state in which one derives no pleasure or sorrow, pride or prejudice...  
You cant even stand in those shoes let alone walk the path without an ultimate respect and regard for life and the natural order of things.


----------



## GBlues (May 15, 2009)

Brian said:


> I apologize, I do not know who Chris is and have never read or watched his stuff as far as I know and I have no idea what or who those guys at TFT are. I am fortunately training out of the country right now so my free time is at a minimum and cannot afford the time to research.
> 
> *Gblues wrote*
> 
> ...


 
Chris is the guy who wrote the article that Black Lion posted. I don't think its a matter of trying to do more violence than the attacker. As it is doing the same violence. When people talk about social, anti-social and a-social behaviors they are very different things. In the realm of violence, I guess you would consider social violence as that of dogs fighting for dominance. It's not about killing the other dog as it is proving superiority. Much like in a social environment, to guys who think there junk is the biggest on the block, and have to prove it by beating the snot out of each other, aren't really trying to kill each other. Then in my mind the anti-social person that performs violence would be say somebody like a outlaw biker. Lives by there own rules, and they might try to kill you if they feel that you have wronged them, but there is a progression to it. This happens, this level gets reached, and then this one, and this one, and so and so forth. Whereas with a-social violence it doesn't progress. It goes from 0 to kill and right now. There is no warning, and there whole purpose is to kill you. So how do you fight someone like that? WHo doesn't care about the consequences and wants to kill you? You have to cause injury, it's not about being afraid, or angry or even being 3x more violent. It's simply that they are like a rabid dog, and won't stop unless you take them to a non-functional state. Whether that be two broken legs, or unconscious or dead, is dependent upon the situation and the practitioner. So I mean, it all depends you may never confront a-social violence, or you might and it's better to be prepared for it, at least mentally, knowing what it takes to save your life. Of course physical preparation helps also. Just my opinion.


----------



## still learning (May 16, 2009)

Hello, Awarenees and Avoidance.....is Prevention.  

Not everyone is attack or force to fight?    ....many people go on thru there lives...with NO problems and are able to use "VERBAL". 

Look around and ask? ...how many people had to fight someone?  ...your Mom or Dad....etc.   sure many times in life there is confrontations....many times ends with NO violences.

Ego's cause more deaths than backing down.

Those who have the killer instinct?  ....watch out....they are fearless!
and will fight to the end.

Can all of us be violent enough?  ......? ...only you know yourself....?

Aloha,  NOT sure what this misconception is all about? ....at loss for sure?


----------



## GBlues (May 16, 2009)

still learning said:


> Hello, Awarenees and Avoidance.....is Prevention.
> 
> Not everyone is attack or force to fight? ....many people go on thru there lives...with NO problems and are able to use "VERBAL".
> 
> ...


 

Yes, still learning awareness and avoidance is prevention, but you can't always count on being able to avoid everything, and nobody can be aware all the time, 24/7 365 days a year, for year after year. It's just not a practical way to live, nor would it make life enjoyable. So you can't count on it, to keep you safe all the time, because you can't be aware all the time. 

And while yes, many people do go through there lives having never been in an altercation, I personally don't believe that, that is the norm. While verbal skills are very important, and can save your tookis more often than not, it won't help you against a commited psychopath, who's bent on your destruction. All it will do, is keep your mind off of the inevitable fact that you are going to very likely have to fight for your life. In an a-social confrontation there is no room for talking, only for action, by the time you have tried to talk the guy down, you very well could be dead, or you may not have had a chance to talk. When those awareness, avoidance, and verbal skills fail to prevent you from being exposed to a violent situation, there is no more prevention it's already to late. Your in it. The only way to prevent the violence that is coming is either A) run if you can which has been mentioned before, or B) be the one doing the violence.

Now as far as my parents or myself being in violent encounters. Well, that all depends, on the situation. If your in an establishment and you wish to leave, because som jerk is wanting to fight you, and you choose to back down that is wonderful, and it is what I would choose to do, as I headed for the door. However, some people are persistant, and choose to stand between you and the door, and at that time, it's no longer social, because he wants to fight, but I don't. I want to leave, and he is now putting himself in an anti-social mentality. He already won when I wanted to leave and should have left it at that. I know in my fathers case, more times than not, that was the case, argument broke out, pops backs down and tries to leave. Guy decides he's not done being an ***, and puts his hands on somebody that he absolutely shouldn't have. You can't take your parents experiences and apply them to your life. Unless you learn something from what they have gone through. All you can do is take your experiences and apply them to your life. And in my life experience, more often than not, even social posturing violence can escalate very quickly into one person or the other trying to kill the other participant. 

Now, people with killer instinct are not, fearless. They appear to be fearless. Unless someone is a total whacko they are scared when in a confrontation. It's normal if your a normal brain functioning individual who actually has some sort of self-preservation instincts. Now can everyone have killer instinct? Absolutely the army and marines take 18 year old punk kids and turn out killers in 3 months. So I would say yeah absolutely anybody and everybody can learn to tap into that side of there human anatomy when necassary. It's not so much being taught how to turn it on, but being taught how to turn it off, once you've learned how to turn it on. Just as black lion said. 

That's about all I can say. I'm not an expert,and I only know what I have been through personally and what the research that I have done has revealed for me. I think a lot of people want to believe that they will never have to use the violent skills that they learn in martial arts or self-defense classes. Hoping that the avoidance, awareness, and verbal skills will keep them safe. Yes, in social situations they will work, a good portion of the time, but when you are in the midst of an a-social confrontation, they will not. You aren't given that chance, and you must at that point, be willing to go the distance whatever that may mean to keep you safe, depending upon the situation.


----------



## GBlues (May 16, 2009)

Stumbled across this video on youtube, from the guy at TFT, take a look at it, I think it might answer a few other questions. Maybe not, cause it is kind of short, for a topic like this. But I thought that it might help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc8sgHmbnDw&feature=related

Check it out.


----------



## chinto (May 17, 2009)

yes there is a difference. 

like the difference between diplomacy and war. 
.. but like diplomats sometimes there are attempts to avoid the unavoidable violent confrontation.  

in the worlds nations it is then the military of those nations duty to go fix it, in a personal situation, you are the military.  The only option is to defend yourself by as old General George S. Patton put it, "making the other dumb son of a ***** die for his country!" 

In the individual persons case, it is by doing enough damage to the attacker that they stop, by being hurt enough, even by lethal force if its an extreme situation, there by stopping the violence against themselves.


----------

