# what the hell kind of thinking is this



## Aiki Lee (Apr 8, 2009)

*RANT!*

My teacher was doing some self-defense seminars for a local high school, which he has been doing for years. But for the first time he enocuntered a group of people who he had never met before.

Normally he tries to get people into the sruvivor mindset like this:
"Imagine a 300 pound hell's angel biker with scras and tatoos all over his face is threatening you. Who wants to rush in and fight with him?"

no one raises their hands

"now imagine that 300 pund man is pounding the person you love most in the face over and over again and then decides he's going to have his way and begins taking his pants off. Who's fighting now?"

almost everyone raises their hands...usually until this day.

Normally my teacher does this to get peole out of victim mentality and get around the fear of injury in order for them to gain the mindset that it is okay to fight back, but this time about 20 people out of 250 said that no matter what they would not jump in to fight off an attacker who was murdering their loved ones.

*WHAT!?*
They said they didn't want to put themselves at risk and wouldn';t want others to place themselves in danger for another's sake. It makes no sense! I gaurantee that if any of these peope where to face a life threatening situation they would pray with all their might that someone would assit them.

Have any of you met people like this? How can anyone think this way. It's so baffling!


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 8, 2009)

What was their reason?
Personally, I can't imagine not fighting for my loved ones. To the death if need be.


----------



## searcher (Apr 8, 2009)

In this country they are called Hippies. 

Or Democrats.

Your choice.




My motto is:
I come to you with only "Karate" - empty hands.
I have no weapons; but should I be forced to
defend myself, my principles or my honor;
should it be a matter of life or death,
of right or wrong; then here are my weapons -
"Karate" - my empty hands.


Ed Parker said it best and it works for me.


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 8, 2009)

Hippies is th wrong word but flower childern would be a better fit.

Me I would either fight or die with them.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 8, 2009)

well, get to it on getting the message across society that this is unacceptable, nobody fixes a problem if they're nrever told one exists.


----------



## Nolerama (Apr 8, 2009)

Hippies? Democrats?

Come on. That's just uncalled for. I own a pair of Birkenstocks... and I voted Democrat. I'll protect my family and those I love.

Jokes not taken as funny aren't really jokes.

Besides... they're called pacifists.

Or sorry to say Himura, these people could have been unresponsive to your teacher's approach to violent situations.

If you approached me with that kind of scenario, I really wouldn't take you seriously or participate in the hand-raising game just to satisfy some individual's perception on self defense.

I don't believe in placing people in a fear mindset, anyway. Many won't learn that way... At least, not effectively.

When you place an audience's mind in fear, it closes off their ability to positively connect with you. How is that a good teaching method?


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 8, 2009)

searcher said:


> In this country they are called Hippies.


 
Ahem ... this particular hippy can use a sword pretty well and was a biker too .  Having long hair and a desire to find a peaceful/equitable solution (if one exists) does not mean that when push comes to shove you're not prepared to defend yourself.

I'm guessing that again we're running into a perjorative label that means different things on different sides of the Pond.  Even so, I am very surprised that a social movement that achieved considerable political clout is held in such denigration these days.


----------



## stone_dragone (Apr 8, 2009)

To defend those who didn't raise their hands at your instructor's seminar, there are many who wouldn't participate in a "hand-raising" exercise regardless of the topic. 

Perhaps in the original post we missed the point that further discussion with the group is what disclosed the ideals of those who said that they wouldn't want to fight to save themselves or someone else.

There is, however, a faction of society that fails to understand that violence exists and no amount of hugging, singing or marijuana smoke will change that.  I'm not against trying, though.

And I like my "Air-Jesus" style sandals very much...


----------



## seasoned (Apr 8, 2009)

Honor, pride, responsibility, accountability, self respect. Most of us were raised in the era where these were the norm. Sadly enough, I feel there is a generation coming up that does not hold these truths. Love of country, belief in something larger then self, honesty integrity, trust, are all just words to some, that mean nothing. People take a lot for granted these days, and thank you, and I am sorry, are not in their vocabulary. I say this because I work closely with the public daily, and I speak from experience. It is disheartening, knowing that there are a lot of people that will not go out of their way, because of inconvenience, to help someone in need. One of the last bastions of hope, is the DoJo. Any DoJo worth their salt is teaching the above right along with there curriculum. Some have said that it isnt the job of the DoJo to teach anything but self defense, but I say they are wrong.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 8, 2009)

I think everybody decides for themselves what their role in life is, and what they are willing to do for themselves, and for others.

I can understand the exasperation one feels when talking to a person who says they would never stand up to defend another from violence.  It is perplexing when one meets someone who says they won't stand up to defend themselves.

On the other hand, I meet an awful lot of people my own age who, upon finding out I am a veteran, say _"Yeah, I was gonna..."_ or _"I wish I had..."_ or _"Man, that's just something I'd never consider doing..."_ or _"If there was another *just* war, like WWII, I'd be on the front lines with 'em..."_ or etc.  Yeah, well, woulda, coulda, shoulda.  You didn't serve.  Live with that.  

Some people won't stand up to defend others, or themselves, or even their own country.  How can you figure that? I guess everyone makes their own decisions and lives with the consequences of their actions or lack of same.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 8, 2009)

Himura Kenshin said:


> *RANT!*
> 
> My teacher was doing some self-defense seminars for a local high school, which he has been doing for years. But for the first time he enocuntered a group of people who he had never met before.
> 
> ...




Some folks are too domesticated for their own good.

If it were just themselves they effected, however, it wouldn't be an issue.....but these folks also vote based on this mentality, and thereby pick representatives to our government who are charged with the protection of this country and our way of life who likewise share their mentality.

Is it any surprise when groups of them show up at the feet of Communist Despots, and coo and fawn like groupies?


----------



## Tames D (Apr 8, 2009)

searcher said:


> In this country they are called Hippies.
> 
> Or Democrats.
> 
> Your choice.


 
Democrats maybe 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  But the first word that came to my mind was cowards.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 8, 2009)

QUI-GON said:


> Democrats maybe
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I think it goes far beyond simple cowardice........to a shared ideology that EMBRACES 'cowardice' not as a vice, but as a virtue!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 8, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I think it goes far beyond simple cowardice........to a shared ideology that EMBRACES 'cowardice' not as a vice, but as a virtue!



Just a question.  Was Jesus a coward?

We who are Christians are commanded to be like Jesus.  I can't do it, I'm too weak.  He went freely to His death, without resistance, without violence.  He even cured the Centurian who was hurt when one of His disciples tried to protect Him.

Non-violence is a virtue, according to many.  It requires a discipline that is beyond my ability, that's for sure.  Like you, I could not stand by and watch my loved one attacked and do nothing.  And perhaps many who would not offer resistance are indeed afraid for their own well-being only.  Perhaps not.  I don't know.  I don't know if I am qualified to judge.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 8, 2009)

Now that's a frightening thought, gentlemen :shudders:. 

The only difference between a coward and a hero is that one of them refuses to be ruled by their fear. 

I think tho' that *Mac* was closer to the mark when he mentioned over _domestication_ as being the root of the problem. The past few generations have been smacked over the head with a constant drum-beat of "Tho' shall not fight under any circumstances. Defending yourself is not your right or your responsibility!". 

Couple that with a few horror stories about what happened to people who did defend themselves and the insidious message really digs in. Such are the depths this pass can get to that you end up with that despicable circumstance in one of the 'school shootings' where people just let themselves be shot!


----------



## blindsage (Apr 8, 2009)

searcher said:


> In this country they are called Hippies.
> 
> Or Democrats.
> 
> Your choice.


 
No, they're called Republicans whent the victims are minorities.











Oh, wait, you say you don't like assinine stereotypes?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 8, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> The only difference between a coward and a hero is that one of them refuses to be ruled by their fear.



Which one would that be?

Supposedly, just about everyone can feel fear.  And fear is known to be an instinct in animals - it provokes a 'fight or flight' reaction.  Some humans exhibit similar traits.

So the thought occurs to me that if my fear prompts me to fight, and I do, I'm 'ruled by my fear'.  Yes?  Same if my fear prompts me to run away and I do that instead.  So what is the difference?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 8, 2009)

Himura Kenshin said:


> *RANT!*
> 
> My teacher was doing some self-defense seminars for a *local high school*, which he has been doing for years. But for the first time he enocuntered a group of people who he had never met before.
> 
> ...


 
I suppose you haven't all over reacted and the truth is there was a bunch of kids there who didn't want to be and weren't going to put their hands up for anything and were going to say anything to annoy the instructor? 
Or perhaps they didn't feel they fit into the 'victim' mindset the instructor obviously thought they fitted into and thought they'd ruin his patter.

I would suggest that if 20 people had decided to say this there's more to this than just they don't want to defend their loved ones, I'd say that for whatever reason they wanted to go against what the group were saying. this probably indicates they didn't want to be there. 

My shift partners and I were on a first aid course run by a patronising git who talked down to us at every turn so we said we'd leave people to bleed to death and we'd never do CPR etc just to annoy him. When asked what we'd do with someone with a suspected broken leg we said give him a kick to see if it was. The whole class joined in. Childish maybe but he was seriously insulting our intelligence and experience. 

Before getting up in arms have a think about why people would say things in a seminar, especially so many people, before deciding they must be cowards etc. I think you'll find there's a much more prosaic reason than that.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 8, 2009)

searcher said:


> In this country they are called Hippies.
> 
> Or Democrats.
> 
> Your choice.



Or Buddhists or Quakers or Amish?


----------



## Carol (Apr 8, 2009)

To get honest input from high schoolers, get them talking in a small group, not an auditorium-sized crowd of 250.  I bet dollars-to-doughnuts some of the kids that were saying they wouldn't help anyone under any circumstances were posturing in some way...ya know, like teenagers do sometimes.


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2009)

Just for what it's worth, I don't like the implications that democrats are cowards and republicans are not, as well as liberals don't serve in the military and conservatives do. 

My personal opinion is that people don't know how they will react in a crisis until they face a crisis requiring action. Most of us would like to think that we would react well, keep a level head and do the right thing when the time comes. Some of us has been in situations where we have had to do these very things. Others have not, and don't know. Those kids don't know, and I'm willing to bet that in a crisis, some who say they wouldn't act would be heroes without a thought. Others who say they'd rush in guns ablazin' would freeze. It's human nature. 

For the most part, our kids in this country have been well sheltered. "Dangerous" in the USA isn't the same thing as elsewhere, and we are by and large a spoiled group of people. Canada and most of the European countries are little better, from what I can gather.

But to those of you who think it's cute or clever to continually associate democrats and/or liberals with cowardice, I'd invite you to take a look at all of the GOP and Democratic politicians on the hill right now and compare service records. They are comparable. There are heroes and patriots on both sides of the aisle. 

I make no secret about leaning to the left, but I am a veteran and served proudly. My brothers have all served, as have both my mom and dad. Between the 6 of us, we have served our country for over 60 years. I believe I've earned a little respect, even if I am a hippy. I'm very sure my mom and dad both deserve respect, even though, by the standards on this board, they're both hippies, too. I'm sure that many other liberals deserve respect in exactly the same way.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 8, 2009)

Don't be a 'nit-picker', *Bill*.  It's not a good way to further a discussion.  

I'm not going to get into an argument over that point.  You know what I meant.

If that cliche truly offends your eye, try a "hero is one whose fear prompted him to run towards the enemy by mistake".


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 8, 2009)

As always, Tez, reason and good sense prevail in your posts.



Tez3 said:


> I would suggest that if 20 people had decided to say this there's more to this than just they don't want to defend their loved ones, I'd say that for whatever reason they wanted to go against what the group were saying. this probably indicates they didn't want to be there.



Two-hundred-fifty people in the room; twenty of them seeking attention. Sounds about right.

In the same group you might find people who profess to do this or that in an s/d situation just to sound tough.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 8, 2009)

Thanks Gordon, much appreciated.

I have to ask too why on earth would you have 250 people in one seminar? How do you teach SD to that many? How many other instructors were there? I've never been to anyones seminar that had more than 30 people there.

C'mon people, get a grip, this isn't a political thing at all, its kids messing around and boy have they wound you lot up! Dear me they would love this!
Anyway enjoy, I'm off for 12 days by the seaside, no computers, just peace and quiet so no falling out or arguing till I'm back and can join in lol! Ta ta!


----------



## Carol (Apr 8, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Thanks Gordon, much appreciated.
> 
> I have to ask too why on earth would you have 250 people in one seminar? How do you teach SD to that many? How many other instructors were there? I've never been to anyones seminar that had more than 30 people there.
> 
> ...



I'm SOOO envious! I'll have to save up all my points of controversy till you get back.  Have a great vacation Tez!  You've earned it


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 8, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> I'm SOOO envious! I'll have to save up all my points of controversy till you get back. Have a great vacation Tez! You've earned it


 
cheers, wish you come come too! I'm off here 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cornwall/photos/coverack/1.shtml

it's lovely!

See you all later!


----------



## AoCAdam (Apr 8, 2009)

I think it might be that they are so afraid of being hit or being in confrontation they don't want to put themselves in such a situation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 8, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Don't be a 'nit-picker', *Bill*.  It's not a good way to further a discussion.
> 
> I'm not going to get into an argument over that point.  You know what I meant.
> 
> If that cliche truly offends your eye, try a "hero is one whose fear prompted him to run towards the enemy by mistake".



All I was trying to point out, gently, was that the term 'coward' is common on MT.  And that is a shame.  It is now a generic term for *'someone who fails to react or believe in the way I would react or believe'*.


----------



## dnovice (Apr 8, 2009)

Himura Kenshin said:


> *RANT!*
> 
> My teacher was doing some self-defense seminars for a local high school, which he has been doing for years. But for the first time he enocuntered a group of people who he had never met before.
> 
> ...


 
lol. That is your average person. IMHO the first group that said they'll help were probably just lying. 

People caring only for themselves used to annoy me.... well... it still does... but i've come to terms with that. chock it of to human nature.


----------



## Guardian (Apr 8, 2009)

Oh well, what can you say.  Some say 20 is what will show off, some say they are cowards, some say this or that.  I say to each their own, I try never to put myself in a situation where I have to depend on anyone that I do not know for sure will have my back.  I know that there are situations that arise that you can not account for every minute of the day, but even then, I try and work those situations to where I don't rely on anyone but myself if it came down to it.  All that good military cop training taught me that.

So those 20 can do whatever they want, I'll do my best to take care of my own.


----------



## redantstyle (Apr 8, 2009)

> All I was trying to point out, gently, was that the term 'coward' is common on MT. And that is a shame. It is now a generic term for *'someone who fails to react or believe in the way I would react or believe'*.


 
avoiding confrontations, or seeking a non-violent resolution to one, are admirable qualities in many situations.  

and i would'nt define that as cowardice.

however, the act of not defending a loved one, if you are capable, is indeed shameful.

and cowardly.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 8, 2009)

redantstyle said:


> however, the act of not defending a loved one, if you are capable, is indeed shameful.
> 
> and cowardly.



I am not a person who could refuse to defend a loved one.  I'd do it though it got me killed.  But that's me.  I also recognize people whose dedication to the principles of non-violence is absolute.  I won't characterize their behavior as cowardly.  As I pointed out earlier, Jesus Christ was Himself one of those cowards.

I think we're too quick to use that term here.  Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 8, 2009)

Nolerama said:


> Besides... they're called pacifists.


Gandhi, one of the best known pacifists in history would disagree, I think.


> It is better to be violent, if their is violence in our hearts than to put on the cloak of pacifism to cover impotency


----------



## Big Don (Apr 8, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> As I pointed out earlier, Jesus Christ was Himself one of those cowards.


John 2:


> Jesus went up to Jerusalem.  14And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
> 15And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;


*scourge 
*

CLICK HERE FOR A PICTURE


> &#8194;             [skurj]   Show IPA   noun, verb, scourged, scourg&#8901;ing. &#8211;noun   1. a whip or lash, esp. for the infliction of punishment or torture.


No, not a pacifist OR a coward.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 8, 2009)

Baaaaa!!...grass eaters.

Pacifism? 



> _[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]*My nonviolence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice.* I can no more preach nonviolence to a coward than I can tempt a blind man to enjoy healthy scenes.[/FONT]_ -Ghandi


----------



## GBlues (Apr 8, 2009)

Hmmm....yeah....Jesus a coward hmmm....I don't think so. This actually was and still is a point of contention for me, with religious nuts since I was a kid. I was raised a Jehovah's Witness for many years of my young life growing up. I have always loved god, and martial arts. In that religion you are not permitted to study martial arts because Jesus said to turn the other cheek. Wow, but you know and I forget where exactly he also says, " there will come a time when a man need sell his coat, and buy a sword." I always wondered why that was? Maybe because one day, you will have to fight for your life? Probably, I would think so. No Jesus wasn't a coward. He was a very brave man. It takes a guy with a pretty big set of balls, to do what he did, knowing 100% for sure, your going to die, and it's going to be very, very, very painful. Not all battles are won with our fists. SOme battles are won with our minds, our beliefs, our ideals, and yes, our actions. Make no mistake, Jesus is and was a warrior. 

Now that being said, and removed from my chest. Not all people feel that they are capable of helping someone else, that is being attacked. If your not, you aren't. It's that simple. Better to not get involved physically, and call for help, than to add another body count to an already bad situation. On the other hand, if you feel at that moment that you can make a difference, then go for it. I feel that most people would, jump in and try to save somebody. 

As far as the 300lb hells angels biker guy coming at you, well that really isn't to scary and I'll tell you why. In my experience as long as you give them the same respect that you want shown to you, they are actually really cool guys. SOme of them even to the point that they would give you the shirt off of their back to help out a friend in need. SO, bad analogy. My opinion only. I've had nothing but positive experiences the few times I've been around them. That being said, hey each to his own. If 230 kids don't want to help out there family members in need, well it ain't no skin off of my back. I'd call it bad parenting, or lack there off, in teaching good upstanding morals. Again my opinion only.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 9, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Just a question.  Was Jesus a coward?
> 
> We who are Christians are commanded to be like Jesus.  I can't do it, I'm too weak.  He went freely to His death, without resistance, without violence.  He even cured the Centurian who was hurt when one of His disciples tried to protect Him.
> 
> Non-violence is a virtue, according to many.  It requires a discipline that is beyond my ability, that's for sure.  Like you, I could not stand by and watch my loved one attacked and do nothing.  And perhaps many who would not offer resistance are indeed afraid for their own well-being only.  Perhaps not.  I don't know.  I don't know if I am qualified to judge.



Well i'm agnostic myself......but last time I checked, Jesus promised to return with a host of angels to take the earth back by force against the Anti-Christ, Satan, and his followers.

Not to mention the whole running the money changers out of the temples bit. 



> *"And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the Temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers money, and overthrew the tables.  And said unto them that sold doves, 'Take these things hence; make not my father's house an house of merchandise.'" -*John 2:15



That shows Jesus engaging in a little physical violence....



> *"...he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no* *sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." - *Luke 22:36



Not exactly the words of a pacifist either.


Technically Christs behavior towards humans is viewed more in his viewing them as his flock, than a complete pacifist view, as obviously he's not philosophical opposed to the idea of force.


Again, as i've mentioned in other posts, there is a difference between someone who is refusing to fight back out of a sense of pacifism, and one who is merely a coward.......and it is the later that has sought to create a virtue out of cowardice, NOT out of pacifism per se.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 9, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Now that's a frightening thought, gentlemen :shudders:.
> 
> The only difference between a coward and a hero is that one of them refuses to be ruled by their fear.
> 
> ...


 We've slowly been turned from wolves, to camp dogs, to herding dogs, and slowly but surely we are becoming those toy foo-foo dogs that can't even jump on the couch.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 9, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Which one would that be?
> 
> Supposedly, just about everyone can feel fear.  And fear is known to be an instinct in animals - it provokes a 'fight or flight' reaction.  Some humans exhibit similar traits.
> 
> So the thought occurs to me that if my fear prompts me to fight, and I do, I'm 'ruled by my fear'.  Yes?  Same if my fear prompts me to run away and I do that instead.  So what is the difference?


 Fight or Flight only applies to threats of an 'other than human' nature......such as a bear or a tiger......we fight or flee.....our brains are wired that way.

But because we are social animals, Human beings actually have FOUR responses to human-on-human aggression.........they are 

Fight
Flight
Posture 
Submit

The vast majority of human on human aggression is male hierarchical aggression........not intended to cause death or be predatory, but instead designed to allow a rank male to attain higher social status at the expense of a lower male.

In those situations one male postures and threatens attack......you can see this by the classic school yard chest flexing, and shirt ripping.....one guy strutting like a rooster, and making threats.......and the other male has four choices........Posture back, Submit, Flee or Fight.

Generally he'll choose to posture or submit, sometimes fight.......he may posture back, leading to a show down.......if neither male submits, one will attack........when one male decides he doesn't want to engage in physical violence anymore he will submit.


What we call 'cowardice' is actually a person who has developed the view that Submission is the answer to all their violence problems......and that might be an acceptable view IF all human-on-human violence were hierarchical in nature........but a minority of human-on-human aggression is PREDATORY!  Submitting to predatory violence is often suicidal.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 9, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> All I was trying to point out, gently, was that the term 'coward' is common on MT.  And that is a shame.  It is now a generic term for *'someone who fails to react or believe in the way I would react or believe'*.



Well, lets settle this once and for all.......a COWARD is henceforth defined as someone who erroneously believes that 'Submission' will save him.

Now, if he KNOWS that submission may not save him, but he does it anyway because he believes that it is morally correct, then he's not a coward......but if he does so under the stubbornly erroneous belief that submission is the best response for not only HIM but everyone he knows, in any violent situation, then 'coward' is a good a word as any......unless you have another suggestion.


Actually, 'cowardice' is just a word that is used to described a phenomenon......even if you change the word, the phenomenon remains unchanged.


----------



## MJS (Apr 9, 2009)

Himura Kenshin said:


> *RANT!*
> 
> My teacher was doing some self-defense seminars for a local high school, which he has been doing for years. But for the first time he enocuntered a group of people who he had never met before.
> 
> ...


 
I've met people who seem to be grossed out, for lack of better words, at the thought of doing anything violent in SD.  The thought of doing anything such as poking the eyes, biting, etc., makes them sick.  

As for the situation you describe above....no, I've never met anyone like that.  Now, I could see being cautious about getting involved in a situation with someone they don't know, and speaking for myself, I'm the same way.  I would not think twice though about calling the police.  Would I jump in and defend someone that I know, yes, I would.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Apr 9, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Which one would that be?
> 
> Supposedly, just about everyone can feel fear. And fear is known to be an instinct in animals - it provokes a 'fight or flight' reaction. Some humans exhibit similar traits.
> 
> So the thought occurs to me that if my fear prompts me to fight, and I do, I'm 'ruled by my fear'. Yes? Same if my fear prompts me to run away and I do that instead. So what is the difference?


 


Bill Mattocks said:


> All I was trying to point out, gently, was that the term 'coward' is common on MT. And that is a shame. It is now a generic term for *'someone who fails to react or believe in the way I would react or believe'*.


 


Bill Mattocks said:


> I am not a person who could refuse to defend a loved one. I'd do it though it got me killed. But that's me. I also recognize people whose dedication to the principles of non-violence is absolute. I won't characterize their behavior as cowardly. As I pointed out earlier, Jesus Christ was Himself one of those cowards.
> 
> I think we're too quick to use that term here. Just my 2 cents.


 
I think the difference is this....

Situation A:  You find yourself in a confrontation.  You do your best to talk your way out of it, it doesnt work, you're forced to fight.  You fight because there're no other options.  ie: you're with your elderly mother who can't run, you can't get to your car because the bad guy is blocking your way.  

Situation B:  You're at the ATM, someone attempts to mug you.  You had over your cash, and pray to God that the badguy leaves.  We assume that if we do this, everything will be ok.  BG doesnt leave and now wants to take you to another location.  THEN you decide to act.  

Why not act sooner?  The 'coward' term is something that I refered to in another recent post, when I was talking about standing my ground and not bowing down to the bad guys.  

For the same reason that you claim:



Bill Mattocks said:


> All I was trying to point out, gently, was that the term 'coward' is common on MT. And that is a shame. It is now a generic term for *'someone who fails to react or believe in the way I would react or believe'*.


 
I could turn that around and say that its a shame that people think that I or anyone else who chooses to standup for themselves is a hot head, an internet tough guy, living a fantasy, etc


----------



## MJS (Apr 9, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Fight or Flight only applies to threats of an 'other than human' nature......such as a bear or a tiger......we fight or flee.....our brains are wired that way.
> 
> But because we are social animals, Human beings actually have FOUR responses to human-on-human aggression.........they are
> 
> ...


 
One of the best points made so far!!!!


----------



## fangjian (Apr 9, 2009)

These are cowards.


http://www.nypost.com/seven/04032009/news/regionalnews/my_unending_rape_horror_162724.htm


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 9, 2009)

My lord!  I wasn't there so I don't want to be judgemental but I hope that in the same circumstances I'd at least inconvenience the attacker with a question or two.  Mind you, it does sound like the assailant was by no means in his right mind.


----------



## Haze (Apr 9, 2009)

20 out of 250? Roughly 8%, not bad at all.

On the positive side 92% would fight to protect others. That's a good percentage.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 9, 2009)

Nolerama said:


> Or sorry to say Himura, these people could have been unresponsive to your teacher's approach to violent situations.
> 
> If you approached me with that kind of scenario, I really wouldn't take you seriously or participate in the hand-raising game just to satisfy some individual's perception on self defense.
> 
> ...


 
My teacher isn't placing them in a fear mindset he is trying to get a point across that while it is often that some people freeze up when defending themselves they jump in to help their families if they are being attacked. It's not about scaring them into action, it is about getting them out of being afriad of being hurt to becoming courageous and fighting for your life. You seem to have missed what I was saying. Most people are very responsive to his program. It is very well done and I am a certified instructor in his S. A. F. E. (safety awareness fundamental education) program. The program is about how to be more aware of the potential dangers around you, what to do when things seem bad, and then what to do if they take a turn for the worse. It's usually a five hour seminar broken down weekly in the schools or done in a single day for certain groups that higher him out like the probation officers or police task force, or the ATF.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 9, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I suppose you haven't all over reacted and the truth is there was a bunch of kids there who didn't want to be and weren't going to put their hands up for anything and were going to say anything to annoy the instructor?
> Or perhaps they didn't feel they fit into the 'victim' mindset the instructor obviously thought they fitted into and thought they'd ruin his patter.
> 
> I would suggest that if 20 people had decided to say this there's more to this than just they don't want to defend their loved ones, I'd say that for whatever reason they wanted to go against what the group were saying. this probably indicates they didn't want to be there.
> ...


 
No those kind of people are in every seminar he does. The groups that don't want to be there usually offer nothing and don't respond to anything my teacher says, but these people were different. They were responsive most of the time and weren't trying to just be against the groups. They simply couldn't understand whys omeone would want to risk their lives for someone else and even if they were attacked they wouldn't want to fight back because they said it could make it worse. If your attacker is trying to kill you, how can it be worse? What's the worst that could happen if you fight against someone trying to kill you? You die. If it's going to happen either way you might as well put up a fight.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 9, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Thanks Gordon, much appreciated.
> 
> I have to ask too why on earth would you have 250 people in one seminar? How do you teach SD to that many? How many other instructors were there? I've never been to anyones seminar that had more than 30 people there.


 
Oh sorry about not being clear, he taught five seminars across the whole day so it was broken up into smaller groups. In one or two of the classes some of the kids were like this.


----------



## astrobiologist (Apr 9, 2009)

In his book, The End of Faith, Sam Harris put forth a pretty good argument against pacifism using a story about a woman possibly being raped.  His opinion was how could you not fight for her?  I agree.  I will jump in to save another.  But just because I think that way doesn't mean others have to as well.  I may not agree with what they are thinking, so that means I will have to jump into the fight in their place.


----------



## girlbug2 (Apr 9, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am not a person who could refuse to defend a loved one. I'd do it though it got me killed. But that's me. I also recognize people whose dedication to the principles of non-violence is absolute. I won't characterize their behavior as cowardly. As I pointed out earlier, Jesus Christ was Himself one of those cowards.
> 
> I think we're too quick to use that term here. Just my 2 cents.


 
As a fellow christian I disagree that Jesus lived by an absolute code of non-violence. Remember that incident where he stormed through the temple with a whip and overturned the tables of the moneychangers? 

Also he did tell his disciples to arm themselves. He was concerned with their safety and wanted them to defend themselves.

There are other mentions throughout the bible that do not prescribe a pacifist view. Painting Jesus as a pacifist is as much an error as painting liberals as cowards. My two cents, for what it's worth.


----------



## fangjian (Apr 9, 2009)

astrobiologist said:


> In his book, The End of Faith, Sam Harris put forth a pretty good argument against pacifism using a story about a woman possibly being raped. His opinion was how could you not fight for her? I agree. I will jump in to save another. But just because I think that way doesn't mean others have to as well. I may not agree with what they are thinking, so that means I will have to jump into the fight in their place.


 
'But just because I think that way doesn't mean others have to as well.'
If you don't think that way you're wrong

Like those two guys who witnessed the girl in NY in trouble and didn't do anything but notify police.  The fact that they called for help says they have a conscience and they did the right thing by doing that, but they should have done more.  Nobody is asking for heroes but it is your 'duty' to do 'all that you can'.  And I don't think they did all they could have and should have.  I'll assume those guys 'froze' in fear.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 9, 2009)

fangjian said:


> Nobody is asking for heroes *but it is your 'duty' to do 'all that you can'.* And I don't think they did all they could have and should have. I'll assume those guys 'froze' in fear.


 
It is? 

Don't get me wrong. I would hope that I would do more in such a situation, but I see little evidence today that individuals are commanded by some sense of duty to look out for their fellows. People on my street won't even clear their ice out of courtesy to elderly pedestrians. 

Look at the arguments espoused for concealed carry permits: 'You have to look out for yourself. No one else is going to do it.' This is the bitter harvest of individualism run amok.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 9, 2009)

Cowardice isn't the only explanation.  Could be apathy.  Of the two, I think I'd have more respect for the coward.


----------



## Hudson69 (Apr 9, 2009)

In that given situation it might be a total stranger and I would have to take action if only to separate the two "fighting."  As for the 20 or so individuals I understand that there are people out there who will not fight no matter what (I think there really are people out there like that) but should I ever be on the receiving end of such a beating and there were family or friends around me who were capable of helping me then there would be more than the psycho biker who would eventually have to contend with me again and I might lose a friend or ex-communicate a family member as a result.

I was told by a brother how long ago at a bar's parking lot (in Utah) one of his friends mouthed off to a couple of guys (my brother's friends have never been guilty of having too much common sense).  There were three including my brother in his group and four in the other.  The four guys confronted and started beating on my brothers friend, my brother jumped in the other friend elected to stay in their truck.  My brother and his friend got beat up pretty good; I remember it when I was a little kid seeing my brother's face all purple and swollen.

The friend who stayed in the truck never came around after that and to this day I dont think he is ever mentioned but I do not know specifically why but that was the crux of it.

And I am not a big guy or the greatest fighter or the bravest guy in the world but what is right is right no matter how you want to paint someones beliefs; skills or no skills if you are capable then you need to step in.


----------



## BLACK LION (Apr 9, 2009)

Its called the "COMFORT OF DENIAL"...  

people never see "IT" happening to them and when they do or when they witness it happening to someone else, they sit there frozen like they are watching a t.v. episode or a blockbuster movie.    

People do not want to give up thier lives or safety for whats righteous and just let alone whats good or decent.  They would rather pull the covers over thier heads and pretend its just some magical fantasy ride that will end once the lights come on and the covers are off.  

I interdicted  a situation recently where a man was hitting a woman in the face while ripping on her purse straps at a bus stop adjacent from a major mall on a busy street here in San Diego.  I was driving by and noticed it and at the same time noticed several onlookers doing nothing but star-gazing. I deceided enough was enough and pulled over in the emergency lane in a parking lot next to the bus stop. I left my wife to watch the car and told her to keep and eye out.  I approched the man while donning my leather gloves and yelled for him to stop immediately and sit down. He looked at me strange so I closed more distance and commanded him to stop immediately and sit down. He complied. I then told him he better not move and that I was going to stand there and make sure he did not move.He was clearly intoxicated.  I waited about 2 minutes all while keeping a 360deg perimeter and making sure my wife was ok.  He waited a little bit, then hopped up an palm cupped her ear really hard while yanking her purse strap. I yelled in a stern roar "HEY" wtf did I just tell you and he looked at me with total surprise... I commanded him to walm away or I would "put him down" then I repeated that I would put him down 2 more times.. he began to move but looking back as if he was leaving something behind.  I repeatedly roared the command to walk until he was at least a quarter mile away and not looking back at all. I apologized to the woman and helped her up. Her spirit and her leather purse were broken but she was ok. By that time my wife was behind me to help the woman. We suggested she walk the other way and if that was her boyfriend then she needs to throw him out or throw him in jail.   She walked the other way and we drove around a few times to make sure he didnt come back.  

I didnt have to escalate into force even though I could have left him there for the paramedics and drove away like nothing ever happened.  The knowledge and ability  to injure or kill affords you the opportunity to control the situation. I understood that it was not the time nor the place to use force or violence so it was diffused through aggressive negotiation. 

Everyone went home and slept in thier own bed that night. I can live with that.


----------



## Stac3y (Apr 9, 2009)

Hudson69 said:


> In that given situation it might be a total stranger and I would have to take action if only to separate the two "fighting." As for the 20 or so individuals I understand that there are people out there who will not fight no matter what (I think there really are people out there like that) but should I ever be on the receiving end of such a beating and there were family or friends around me who were capable of helping me then there would be more than the psycho biker who would eventually have to contend with me again and I might lose a friend or ex-communicate a family member as a result.
> 
> I was told by a brother how long ago at a bar's parking lot (in Utah) one of his friends mouthed off to a couple of guys (my brother's friends have never been guilty of having too much common sense). There were three including my brother in his group and four in the other. The four guys confronted and started beating on my brothers friend, my brother jumped in the other friend elected to stay in their truck. My brother and his friend got beat up pretty good; I remember it when I was a little kid seeing my brother's face all purple and swollen.
> 
> ...


 
I think this differs greatly from the OP's example. I think most decent people (pacifists excepted, though I must mention that my husband claims to be one, and if he saw someone try to rape me, that person would be in tiny pieces) would step in in the original example. When you're out with friends and those friends provoke a fight (not saying this is definitely what happened, but from the limited description, it sounds likely to me), I don't think it's wrong to stay the heck out of it. And it may be that the friend in the truck stayed away thereafter because he was smart enough to know that it can be very dangerous to hang around with people who mouth off to others in bar parking lots. 

There's a story in Funakoshi's Twenty Guiding Principles of Karate that addresses this (sort of). Loosely paraphrased, a master has two students that are considered to be likely inheritors of his school. He observes one student walk down the street and pass close to a fractious horse, which kicks out at him. The student neatly evades the kick and blocks it, then continues without a hair out of place. Later, the other student walks down the same street, where the same fractious horse is tethered. Rather than walk close by the horse, this student crosses the street, avoiding aggravating the horse further. The master dismisses the first student from the school and names the second student his heir, saying that anyone with the poor judgement to walk behind a fractious horse rather than avoiding the problem by giving the horse a wide berth is not fit to train his students. 

Or in my North Louisiana rustic grandpa's words, "Mouthing off to drunks in a bar parking lot is what I call dumbing yourself to death."

Just my 12.5 cents.


----------



## fangjian (Apr 9, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> Its called the "COMFORT OF DENIAL"...
> 
> people never see "IT" happening to them and when they do or when they witness it happening to someone else, they sit there frozen like they are watching a t.v. episode or a blockbuster movie.
> 
> ...


 
That's awesome man.  Good job for helping her.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 9, 2009)

Himura Kenshin said:


> *RANT!*
> 
> My teacher was doing some self-defense seminars for a local high school, which he has been doing for years. But for the first time he enocuntered a group of people who he had never met before.
> 
> ...


They have lived sheltered lives.
Sean


----------



## ArmorOfGod (Apr 9, 2009)

searcher said:


> In this country they are called Hippies.
> 
> Or Democrats.
> 
> Your choice.


 
Seriously, did he really just type that?
Either he was trying to be witty or is full of hate and prejeduce.
Oh, well.  It takes all types--even bad ones.

AoG


----------



## MJS (Apr 9, 2009)

fangjian said:


> 'But just because I think that way doesn't mean others have to as well.'
> If you don't think that way you're wrong
> 
> Like those two guys who witnessed the girl in NY in trouble and didn't do anything but notify police. The fact that they called for help says they have a conscience and they did the right thing by doing that, but they should have done more. Nobody is asking for heroes but it is your 'duty' to do 'all that you can'. And I don't think they did all they could have and should have. I'll assume those guys 'froze' in fear.


 
Why, because someone trains in martial arts, does it mean that we have to be supermen and defend everyone?  Hey, if someone chooses to get involved, thats fine but I don't think that anyone is required to.  Simply calling for help, providing the police with a good description of whats happening, should be good enough.  

Think about this...how many times during a domestic disturbance, do we often see the cops get attacked by the very same woman who was getting beat up by her husband?  It happens.  Suddenly, depsite her getting her *** kicked, now she loves the guy, doesnt wanna see him in jail, etc.  Same thing here.  We don't know who the people are, if there're weapons, etc.  

I think that by always looking to get involved, that kind of hints at the person wanting to be a hero.


----------



## fangjian (Apr 9, 2009)

MJS said:


> Why, because someone trains in martial arts, does it mean that we have to be supermen and defend everyone? Hey, if someone chooses to get involved, thats fine but I don't think that anyone is required to. Simply calling for help, providing the police with a good description of whats happening, should be good enough.
> 
> Think about this...how many times during a domestic disturbance, do we often see the cops get attacked by the very same woman who was getting beat up by her husband? It happens. Suddenly, depsite her getting her *** kicked, now she loves the guy, doesnt wanna see him in jail, etc. Same thing here. We don't know who the people are, if there're weapons, etc.
> 
> I think that by always looking to get involved, that kind of hints at the person wanting to be a hero.


 
I think as a human being you should have a sense of duty to help other people when they need help.  

"Simply calling for help, providing the police with a good description of whats happening, should be good enough. "  -  That's great if that is all you can/should do.


----------



## MJS (Apr 9, 2009)

fangjian said:


> Nobody is asking for heroes


 


fangjian said:


> I think as a human being you should have a sense of duty to help other people when they need help.
> 
> "Simply calling for help, providing the police with a good description of whats happening, should be good enough. " - That's great if that is all you can/should do.


 
I think the first quote is a bit contradictory.  If we really want to get technical about it, I don't have to help anyone.  If I'm out driving and see a crash, I'm not obligated to call for help, although I have many times.  I'm not obligated to help the old lady getting her purse taken.  I'm not obligated to pursue the bank robber.  The list can go on and on.

A quick story.  I'm a dispatcher for a PD here in CT.  I recall one night a woman called explaining that her and her husband were getting repeated phony calls from someone.  Apparently, a few weeks before, a pizza was delivered to her house.  She nor her husband did not place an order.  Apparently this pissed off the delivery guy, so he crank called them repeatedly.  Apparently her husband staked out the phone he was calling from, and proceeded to chase after him in his car.  She was on a cell phone with him, and on the house phone with me, telling me what was happening, etc.  Now, not only was this guy risking his life, but the lives of everyone else on the road...all because he was pissed at this delivery guy.  Why not get a plate and let the cops deal with it?

The guy was caught and dealt with by the police.  But, this husband was no better than the guy he was chasing.  Instead, he wanted to play hero.  What would he have done if he caught him?  Kicked his ***?  

My point of all this is....why put yourself in the middle when you don't have to?  I guess you have a big red S on your chest, and again, thats fine.  But to think that every should do the same isn't right.

I've taken calls of active fights, of a neighbors house being broken into.  They stayed on the phone with me, giving me exact details of whats going on, descriptions of the people, any vehicles, etc. and the cops caught and arrested them.  By your logic, the neighbor should have raced over to his neighbors and confronted the robbers.

Mike


----------



## fangjian (Apr 9, 2009)

MJS said:


> I think the first quote is a bit contradictory. If we really want to get technical about it, I don't have to help anyone. If I'm out driving and see a crash, I'm not obligated to call for help, although I have many times. I'm not obligated to help the old lady getting her purse taken. I'm not obligated to pursue the bank robber. The list can go on and on.
> 
> A quick story. I'm a dispatcher for a PD here in CT. I recall one night a woman called explaining that her and her husband were getting repeated phony calls from someone. Apparently, a few weeks before, a pizza was delivered to her house. She nor her husband did not place an order. Apparently this pissed off the delivery guy, so he crank called them repeatedly. Apparently her husband staked out the phone he was calling from, and proceeded to chase after him in his car. She was on a cell phone with him, and on the house phone with me, telling me what was happening, etc. Now, not only was this guy risking his life, but the lives of everyone else on the road...all because he was pissed at this delivery guy. Why not get a plate and let the cops deal with it?
> 
> ...


 I'm sorry can't seem to figure out how to 'multiquote'

Para 1.  No _technically_ you aren't obligated *legally by law* to help this person in an accident.  But you helped them didn't you, because you feel you kinda' are obligated by different laws.

Para 2-3.  Wow what an awful idea.

Para 4.  A person should do what they *can/should.  *I don't have an S on my chest.  And if I did, it isn't ok.

Para. 5  By my logic he did what he *can/should.*


----------



## MJS (Apr 9, 2009)

fangjian said:


> I'm sorry can't seem to figure out how to 'multiquote'


 
At the beginning of the paragraph you want to quote, use these [] with the word quote in the middle.  At the end of the paragraph, do the same thing, but put a / before the word quote.  



> Para 1. No _technically_ you aren't obligated *legally by law* to help this person in an accident. But you helped them didn't you, because you feel you kinda' are obligated by different laws.


 
I called, but didn't you say that we should do more?  If I'm supposed to rush to the aid of the woman getting beaten, then I should've pulled over and administered first aid.



> Para 2-3. Wow what an awful idea.


 
Yes, I agree.



> Para 4. A person should do what they *can/should. *I don't have an S on my chest. And if I did, it isn't ok.


 
So calling should be enough.  Anything else is optional.

Para. 5 By my logic he did what he *can/should.*[/quote]

But earlier you said that someone should intervien if they saw someone getting beaten.  So if the neighbor saw the badguys leaving the house, the neighbor could have ran after them bnut chose not to.

Like I said, if someone wants to get physically involved, thats fine, more power to them.  If someone wants to call the police, like I have many times, thats fine too.  But I don't think that anyone should be obligated to get physically involved.  Simply calling for aid should suffice.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 9, 2009)

searcher said:


> In this country they are called Hippies.
> 
> Or Democrats.
> 
> Your choice.



Wow, pull your head out of Hannity's lap long enough to think a thought, will ya.  Besides I'm sure he's pretty chafed by now.

are all Conservatives scar-covered biker rapists LOL


----------



## fangjian (Apr 9, 2009)

MJS said:


> I think the first quote is a bit contradictory. If we really want to get technical about it, I don't have to help anyone. If I'm out driving and see a crash, I'm not obligated to call for help, although I have many times. I'm not obligated to help the old lady getting her purse taken. I'm not obligated to pursue the bank robber. The list can go on and on.
> 
> A quick story. I'm a dispatcher for a PD here in CT. I recall one night a woman called explaining that her and her husband were getting repeated phony calls from someone. Apparently, a few weeks before, a pizza was delivered to her house. She nor her husband did not place an order. Apparently this pissed off the delivery guy, so he crank called them repeatedly. Apparently her husband staked out the phone he was calling from, and proceeded to chase after him in his car. She was on a cell phone with him, and on the house phone with me, telling me what was happening, etc. Now, not only was this guy risking his life, but the lives of everyone else on the road...all because he was pissed at this delivery guy. Why not get a plate and let the cops deal with it?
> 
> ...


 


> MJS said:
> 
> 
> > At the beginning of the paragraph you want to quote, use these [] with the word quote in the middle. At the end of the paragraph, do the same thing, but put a / before the word quote.
> ...


 


> But earlier you said that someone should intervien if they saw someone getting beaten. So if the neighbor saw the badguys leaving the house, the neighbor could have ran after them bnut chose not to.


 
That 1st sentence sounds very generalized(if *someone* saw *someone) *Yeah if I was gettin the crap kicked out of me I don't expect some 70 yr old woman to get physically involved.  She *shouldn't/can't.  *

Badguys running away from the scene?  Why chase them?   I don't understand why you're asking that.  




> Like I said, if someone wants to get physically involved, thats fine, more power to them. If someone wants to call the police, like I have many times, thats fine too. But I don't think that anyone should be obligated to get physically involved. Simply calling for aid should suffice.


[/quote]

Calling for aid is great, but sometimes you know that's not enough.  Did you read or watch that subway rape story?


----------



## fangjian (Apr 9, 2009)

Wow. I suck at multiquoting.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 10, 2009)

fangjian said:


> Wow. I suck at multiquoting.


 It's a skill....


----------



## MrE2Me2 (Apr 10, 2009)

Ahem!

To pull back a bit and re-address this issue of not fighting from a slightly different perspective...

I have trained and taught the Martial Arts all my life (well...since I was nine anyway).

I currently have a student who is very much into academia. This learned Doctor is willing to train hard in Martial Arts. Yet when I ask him to demonstrate a strike or kick on me with a 'finishing move', he will inevitably choose a target that is not suitable (like the bicep or the collarbone).

1. I have asked him what he thinks the move would do and at first, he truly *believed* his attack would work. It took so convincing to show him otherwise.

2. I had a discussion a number of years ago with my stepdaughter's teacher over the issue of bullying. This teacher was firmly convinced that reason would stop a bully.

In the first instance, I was (and am) able to reach my student about what a realistic attack is; what it looks like, what it takes to stop one, etc.

In the second instance, I was not able to reach the teacher in question.

As a student of mine once said, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink it."


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 10, 2009)

MrE2Me2 said:


> Ahem!
> 
> To pull back a bit and re-address this issue of not fighting from a slightly different perspective...
> 
> ...



I wonder how she'd 'reason' her way out of this situation...... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b6_1236294679


----------



## MrE2Me2 (Apr 10, 2009)

You got me!

Even worse, another student from that same district committed suicide rather than continue to face bullying.

After his death, when his mother offered to talk to students (who were still complaining of bullying); she was flatly turned down.

I guess these people believe that 'De Nile' is just a river in Egypt...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 10, 2009)

MrE2Me2 said:


> You got me!
> 
> Even worse, another student from that same district committed suicide rather than continue to face bullying.
> 
> ...


True, that.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 10, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I wonder how she'd 'reason' her way out of this situation...... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b6_1236294679


 
At least the other kids on the bus were trying to pull him off and not just watching. But without training it looks like nobody really knows what to do. Isn't if frustrating to see a situation unfold like this and know that if you were there it would have turned out differently?

It makes me weep to see people that deranged and other people who want him to stop, but don't know what to do.


----------



## fangjian (Apr 10, 2009)

Himura Kenshin said:


> At least the other kids on the bus were trying to pull him off and not just watching. But without training it looks like nobody really knows what to do. Isn't if frustrating to see a situation unfold like this and know that if you were there it would have turned out differently?
> 
> It makes me weep to see people that deranged and other people who want him to stop, but don't know what to do.


 
That is definately a time when you must get physically involved especially if you are able.  If you aren't able, then you aren't able.  

I know you would bust out you're Amakakeru Ryu No Hirameki in that situation


----------



## MJS (Apr 10, 2009)

fangjian said:


> That 1st sentence sounds very generalized(if *someone* saw *someone) *Yeah if I was gettin the crap kicked out of me I don't expect some 70 yr old woman to get physically involved. She *shouldn't/can't. *
> 
> Badguys running away from the scene? Why chase them? I don't understand why you're asking that.


 


> Calling for aid is great, but sometimes you know that's not enough. Did you read or watch that subway rape story?


 
Man, this was hard to read! LOL! Before I get into the post, I'll go over the quoting again. Use [] with quote between them at the beginning of the paragraph that you want to quote, with the same at the end, but a / before the word quote. Do this each time you want to quote a paragraph. 

Back to what you said...your theory is that we should do more than just calling for help. My theory is that calling is all that we really need to do. You said to me that I'm not obligated to help by calling in the accident, but I did, so yes, I offered help. Going by what you've said in past posts, by your theory I should have done more, but in another post you said that calling was good enough. See the confusion? 

I asked about the enighbors house getting broken into and chasing after the badguys. You thought that was crazy. Why? I mean, if you're going to sit here and say that someone should get involved with someone getting beat up, then why not chase after the bad guys? 

For the record, I would not chase after them, no more than I would get involved in breaking up a fight between 2 people I don't know. But again, in one post you shun people for not getting involved and then think chasing after burglers is crazy. Are you reading what you're saying here dude?

As for stopping at an accident. First off, I am now putting my safety at risk because I'm entering a dangerous situation. I am not driving a police car with flashing lights, so I could get hit, my car could get hit, etc. 2nd, I don't know first aid, so I'm not going to bite off more than I can chew and play HERO. And I don't want some do-gooder, who wants to play HERO and try to help, and now I run the risk of being injured further by them playing HERO. 

My calling for the police, fire dept, etc. is MORE than enough. PERIOD! Again, if you want to play tough guy and break up fights, if you want to play HERO and stop at an accident, more power to you. But again, please don't think that we all should do what YOU want to do. As I said, technically, I dont have to do anything, but I at least call.


----------



## Marginal (Apr 10, 2009)

searcher said:


> In this country they are called Hippies.
> 
> Or Democrats.
> 
> Your choice.


Hur hur hur. 

Democrats are all Amish/Quakers now?


----------



## Big Don (Apr 10, 2009)

Marginal said:


> Hur hur hur.
> 
> Democrats are all Amish/Quakers now?


You've never seen republicans protesting against the use of force, on those few occasions when a democrat president actually finds the will to order it.


----------



## fangjian (Apr 10, 2009)

MJS said:


> Man, this was hard to read! LOL! Before I get into the post, I'll go over the quoting again. Use [] with quote between them at the beginning of the paragraph that you want to quote, with the same at the end, but a / before the word quote. Do this each time you want to quote a paragraph.


 I apologize.  it was hard for me to read too. lol Hopefuly I get it right this time.



> Back to what you said...your theory is that we should do more than just calling for help. My theory is that calling is all that we really need to do. You said to me that I'm not obligated to help by calling in the accident, but I did, so yes, I offered help. Going by what you've said in past posts, by your theory I should have done more, but in another post you said that calling was good enough. See the confusion?


There is no confusion.  All I am saying is there are times when calling for help isn't enough.  I think we have, like two different type of scenarios in our heads.  Maybe in this car accident that you're thinking of it is late at night and it's on I-95 and it's really dangerous to stop in the dark etc.  Maybe in my scenario it's daytime on a quite street, and I'm comfortable with stopping and comfortable with first aid(which is a good class BTW and you should consider taking it.  At least for your loved ones sake)



> I asked about the enighbors house getting broken into and chasing after the badguys. You thought that was crazy. Why? I mean, if you're going to sit here and say that someone should get involved with someone getting beat up, then why not chase after the bad guys?


 
Chasing after bad guys IS crazy.  They're running away.  Screw'em. Getting physically involved when it is appropriate is different from being a dumbass and chasing bankrobbers and stuff 



> For the record, I would not chase after them, no more than I would get involved in breaking up a fight between 2 people I don't know. But again, in one post you shun people for not getting involved and then think chasing after burglers is crazy. Are you reading what you're saying here dude?


 Again, maybe the scenarios are different between us.  Maybe you're thinking of a couple drunk college kids brawlin it out in some bar.  No, I wouldn't break them up because I don't think that's worth my time.  I remember seeing this Dateline episode and they had a little girl(actress) playing in a park by herself.  Then, they'd have some guy(actor) who would begin to coerce her to go with him even though they are strangers.  Just an experiment on seeing what bystanders would do.  Only a small % _got involved.  _

That's what I mean.  Some people are just too reluctant to _get involved. _That little kid is worth my time because she can't fight for herself_,_ unlike some moron in a bar_._  If calling the police is all I can do than that's fine but if the conditions are good to get verbally involved than I will.  If the conditions are right to get phyically involved than I will.     



> As for stopping at an accident. First off, I am now putting my safety at risk because I'm entering a dangerous situation. I am not driving a police car with flashing lights, so I could get hit, my car could get hit, etc. 2nd, I don't know first aid, so I'm not going to bite off more than I can chew and play HERO. And I don't want some do-gooder, who wants to play HERO and try to help, and now I run the risk of being injured further by them playing HERO.
> 
> My calling for the police, fire dept, etc. is MORE than enough. PERIOD! Again, if you want to play tough guy and break up fights, if you want to play HERO and stop at an accident, more power to you. But again, please don't think that we all should do what YOU want to do. As I said, technically, I dont have to do anything, but I at least call.


 
The scenarios going through my head have nothing to do with *playing hero.*  I remember stopping at an accident last year.  This elderly gentlemen crossed the median and struck a car.  I dialed 911 and stopped to see if I could help before aid showed up.  It was impossible to apply first aid cause he was still in the vehicle and it was slightly crushed in.  I just told him that help was coming and I'd stay until they got there.  Just to let him know he wasn't alone.  He was very scared and I think that by just hangin out with him for a few minutes was comforting.  
You know what I mean?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 11, 2009)

DavidCC said:


> Wow, pull your head out of Hannity's lap long enough to think a thought, will ya.  Besides I'm sure he's pretty chafed by now.
> 
> are all Conservatives scar-covered biker rapists LOL


 'Scar-covered biker rapists?'  I didn't realize that 'Scar-covered biker rapists' was considered a Conservative stereotype......:toilclaw:

Come on, man, if you're going to come up with an analogy to the 'Hippy' post, make it one that makes sense!  Like.....'Bible Thumping Jesus Freak'.......or 'Uptight insurance salesmen'......but 'Scar-covered biker rapists'?!  What dark hole did you pull that out of? :lfao:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 11, 2009)

Himura Kenshin said:


> At least the other kids on the bus were trying to pull him off and not just watching. But without training it looks like nobody really knows what to do. Isn't if frustrating to see a situation unfold like this and know that if you were there it would have turned out differently?
> 
> It makes me weep to see people that deranged and other people who want him to stop, but don't know what to do.



My thoughts exactly.....I watch something like that and I wanted to jump through the screen and choke the little piece of dung unconscious!


----------



## CHAOS (Apr 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Just a question. Was Jesus a coward?
> 
> We who are Christians are commanded to be like Jesus. I can't do it, I'm too weak. He went freely to His death, without resistance, without violence. He even cured the Centurian who was hurt when one of His disciples tried to protect Him.
> 
> Non-violence is a virtue, according to many. It requires a discipline that is beyond my ability, that's for sure. Like you, I could not stand by and watch my loved one attacked and do nothing. And perhaps many who would not offer resistance are indeed afraid for their own well-being only. Perhaps not. I don't know. I don't know if I am qualified to judge.


 
Jesus also told his disciples to sell their garments and buy a sword. I don't think Jesus expects us to be just like him. If he did, he never would have gone to the cross in the first place. He knew that the Christians of the world would be hunted and slaughtered. He was right. Look at how they have taken God out of schools, the courtroom, and trying to take it out of our pledge of allegence. We have allowed this country to take God out of every aspect of public life by just standing by and not fighting back. This is why I believe he told the disciples to buy swords. We were expected to fight for him, because he would not fight for himself. This is a whole other stream, but Christians were never told that we shouldnt defend ourselves, we were told not to fight for pride or out of anger. The Catholics are the ones that started the whole misconception of Jesus' intentions. Think about it. How better to control a religious zealot, than to convince him that his God wants him to be passive and take what ever the government dishes out. The Romans were masters of espionage, and that is exactly what they did with the christians.

Luke 22:36/KJV  Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.


----------



## MJS (Apr 11, 2009)

fangjian said:


> I apologize. it was hard for me to read too. lol Hopefuly I get it right this time.


 
Yes, you got it. 




> There is no confusion. All I am saying is there are times when calling for help isn't enough. I think we have, like two different type of scenarios in our heads. Maybe in this car accident that you're thinking of it is late at night and it's on I-95 and it's really dangerous to stop in the dark etc. Maybe in my scenario it's daytime on a quite street, and I'm comfortable with stopping and comfortable with first aid(which is a good class BTW and you should consider taking it. At least for your loved ones sake)


 
True, depending on location does make some difference.  Of course, it could be said that despite first aid which is basic training, maybe I don't want to risk causing further injury.  Another short story.  I was in WalMart a few years ago.  From the next aisle I heard a yell and a thud.  I walked around the corner and saw an elderly lady on the ground.  Apparently someone bumped into her with the carriage and knocked her down.  She didn't 'appear' to be injured.  One of the store mgrs. came over with another kid.  He told him to get a chair and then looked at me and asked to help him lift her up.  I suggested that he keep her on the ground and call an ambulance.  He disregarded that, the kid came back with the chair and he told the kid to help her.  I backed off and left.  Why?  How does she know that she isn't injured?  Happens all the time in an accident.  You feel fine at the moment and suddenly pain.  First aid or not, I'm not a professional.  I also don't want to get sued.  There're people out there, ie: EMTs, Paramedics, LEOs, Firefighters, and Doctors who get paid to give care.  Let them do it.  They know how to properly lift, stabalize, etc.  Again, calling should be enough.  





> Chasing after bad guys IS crazy. They're running away. Screw'em. Getting physically involved when it is appropriate is different from being a dumbass and chasing bankrobbers and stuff


 
So, when you approach this guy kicking his girlfriends ***, and he pulls out a gun and aims it at you, then what?  What happens when you're pulling him off of his girlfriend, she pulls out a knife and stabs you.  See what I'm saying?  The intent is good on your part, I will give you that.  But I'm looking at it from another side.  Will that always happen?  I don't know, but personally I'm not risking my life in a situation like that.  



> Again, maybe the scenarios are different between us. Maybe you're thinking of a couple drunk college kids brawlin it out in some bar. No, I wouldn't break them up because I don't think that's worth my time. I remember seeing this Dateline episode and they had a little girl(actress) playing in a park by herself. Then, they'd have some guy(actor) who would begin to coerce her to go with him even though they are strangers. Just an experiment on seeing what bystanders would do. Only a small % _got involved. _




_The other %....did they call the police? Or did they do nothing at all?  _



> That's what I mean. Some people are just too reluctant to _get involved. _That little kid is worth my time because she can't fight for herself_,_ unlike some moron in a bar_._ If calling the police is all I can do than that's fine but if the conditions are good to get verbally involved than I will. If the conditions are right to get phyically involved than I will.


 
As I said, I respect your decision if thats what you want to do.  In return, people should respect the decision to a) not do anything or b) at least call, if they don't want to get involved.  As long as you're prepared to take the risks that come along with getting involved.  As long as you're willing to die for 2 people who you don't know and who probably fight on a daily basis, but the girl is too dumb to leave because she thinks the guy really "loves" her, thats fine.  As long as your wife and kids are ok with that, then as I said, I wish you well.  





> The scenarios going through my head have nothing to do with *playing hero.* I remember stopping at an accident last year. This elderly gentlemen crossed the median and struck a car. I dialed 911 and stopped to see if I could help before aid showed up. It was impossible to apply first aid cause he was still in the vehicle and it was slightly crushed in. I just told him that help was coming and I'd stay until they got there. Just to let him know he wasn't alone. He was very scared and I think that by just hangin out with him for a few minutes was comforting.
> You know what I mean?


 
And I could tell you stories of the Chief of one of the fire depts that I dispatch for, who stopped his fire vehicle behind a disabled car, and stayed until PD got there.  However, it was a very busy night, and he was getting upset because PD wasn't getting there quick enough.  Well, nobody told you to play police officer and stop, you did it on your own, so shut the hell up and wait until the domestics, assaults, and major accidents clear up.  If he wants to be a cop that bad, then he should apply. 

Believe me, I've stopped, and asked if everyone was ok, if the police had been called, etc.  Trust me when I say though, you'd be surprised at the number of people who do just what I do....drive by and call 911.  Everybody calls.   However, when I ask if there are injuries, the majority of people that I talk to say...." I don't know.  I was driving by, saw the crash and called 911." or, " Don't know, but everybody is out of their cars." or "I stopped and asked.  Everybody said they were ok."

Props to all those folks.   They helped.  Their simple call got help started.  

As I said, if someone wants to physically get involved, more power to them.  As long as they are willing to accept anything else that follows.  If someone just wants to call, then those people, whether they could help physically or not, still deserve some props for getting involved.  Afterall, they could have just looked the other way.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 11, 2009)

Many times just verbally commanding a person to stop has the desired effect...espically if you are on the line with 911 at the same time. It comes down to doing SOMETHING vs. just walking away. It doesnt always mean having to get physically involved. But getting "involved" in any manner can increase your risk of being injured....


----------



## fangjian (Apr 11, 2009)

> As I said, I respect your decision if thats what you want to do. In return, people should respect the decision to a) not do anything or b) at least call, if they don't want to get involved.


 
This is my entire problem.  For people who choose to do nothing at all is ridiculous.  I don't respect their decision.  

We can come up with situations that fit our own agenda(for lack of a better word)  
I'm talkin about getting involved. Either,a. by *calling for help* from afar(safest and almost just as easy as doing nothing at all),  b.*Getting closure* and making your presence known( less safe), c. *physically involved* through combat or maybe like applying first aid (scariest). 

And doing one or more of these options when apropriate.
 I'm not chasing burglers down the street. hahaha


----------



## fangjian (Apr 11, 2009)

Lololol.  "Getting closure"

I meant getting closer


----------



## Kacey (Apr 11, 2009)

Himura Kenshin said:


> *RANT!*
> 
> My teacher was doing some self-defense seminars for a local high school, which he has been doing for years. But for the first time he enocuntered a group of people who he had never met before.
> 
> ...



I'm coming to this somewhat late - but I've skimmed over the entire thread and I don't think the point I'm going to make has been addressed as yet.

These are _teenagers_ - they have, as a group, very little real-world experience on which to base their opinions, and also, as a group, tend to have a noticeable percentage of idealists who, in an earlier time, might not have been willing to stand up for their ideals - and one of those ideals is the belief that "it can't happen to me".  Teens tend to think that they are bulletproof - that the bad things that happen to others cannot happen to them.  Being in a situation that requires self-defense - no matter how graphically presented - is one of those situations that they don't believe can happen to _them_; such things only happen to that mythical "other person" who actually needs the advice being presented. 

Having said that, I will also say that I have taught self-defense both inside and outside of the TKD class I teach, including to middle school students - the next-younger age group from high school, for those unfamiliar with the American school system; most are between 11 and 14 years old.  The kids I see when I do this are split into 3 groups:  



those who are so fascinated by what they are seeing that they don't even think about what it's for - which is, realistically, the largest group - the ones who are thinking "You want me to _yell_ really _loud_ inside the school!!!!  I get to _grab_ another student and try to drop him/her on the floor!!!   Or punch at him/her!!!   This is so cool!
then the second group (thankfully much smaller) who believe that this self-defense stuff is for wimps; if I need to defend myself, I'll get a knife or a gun... never mind that I have no idea how to use either one
finally, there is the last group, which has decided that submission is easier/less dangerous/more appropriate than fighting back.  Some of them have been beaten into submission - by parents, by siblings, by bullies, etc.; some have been taught that fighting back is philosophically _wrong_, for reasons ranging from personal to religious, depending on who is teaching them; some have simply never been confronted by a situation that would cause them to realize that they need to do anything other than float through life
Realistically, I have met adults who fit in the above categories as well - the only difference is that there is a fourth category for adults:  those who realize that danger is a reality and self-defense may someday become necessary.  For kids, that category often only exists for those who have personally needed to defend themselves or have a close friend who has had to do so.  

I am not surprised that less than 10% of those present at the seminars you discuss say they wouldn't defend themselves; rather, I'm surprised it wasn't a larger group, given the age of the participants.  Kids today have an amazing belief in their own indestructibility, and an even more amazing belief that they are entitled to a smooth, even life, where nothing they dislike will ever occur - and they've been taught that sense of entitlement very carefully and completely by their parents, the media, their friends, and many other sources of information in their lives.  As a teacher, fighting against that sense of entitlement - the "how dare you flunk me just because I did no work - I'm _smart_, I _deserve_ an A" - with mommy or daddy right behind them, just as loud  - that is, in many ways, the hardest part of my job.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 11, 2009)

good point


----------



## Phoenix44 (Apr 11, 2009)

You know, if you want to issue gratuitous insults about the various political parties, you can go to The Study.


----------



## kyosa (Apr 12, 2009)

Himura Kenshin said:


> *RANT!*
> 
> My teacher was doing some self-defense seminars for a local high school, which he has been doing for years. But for the first time he enocuntered a group of people who he had never met before.
> 
> ...


 
It is sad to see stuff like this.  This is not the first time or the only time that this type of behavior has been seen.  Lt Col. Dave Grossman studies school violence and shootings and one thing has been common until Virginia Tech.  The one thing in common has been fight or flight.  All of the kids in all the school shootings have chose to fight or flee, but at Virginia Tech many of the kids sat in their chairs and waited to die.  One girl put her head in her hand with her elbow resting on her desk just waiting to die.  She was shot that way and that is how the Police found her.

What are we teaching our kids?  Obviously we are failing to teach our young many things including morals and basic survival skills.  Basic survival for any species is to run or defend yourself when attacked-all creatures for the most part instinctually know this.  No one had to teach me to defend those that I loved-or if they did it was taught at such an early age I don't remember it being taught.

Pure and simple there are times when people will have to fight or choose to cease to exist.  You will die if you don't fight in certain situations.  There are also times when others will die if you don't act, and if it is a person that you love then you will probably be haunted by your failure to act for your whole life.  Even if you don't know that person and they died because you failed to act you will probably be haunted by your cowardice.  Failure to act is cowardice!

One way of looking at people is to divide them into three groups:  sheep, sheep dogs and wolfs.  Sheep go about their business every day and for the most part dont hurt anyone and are good people.  Wolfs are predators and they like sheep-they make easy victims.  Sheep dogs have fangs, snarl and bark and have the capacity for violence-they kinda look like wolves even.  But Sheep dogs love the sheep, protect them and never prey on them.  When the wolves come to prey on the sheep that is when the Sheep dogs shine-they sacrifice they're own safety and lives even to protect the sheep.  In my opinion anyone calling themselves or thinking of themselves as a Martial Artist should also think of themselves as a Sheep dog.  

To simply stand by while anyone, especially a loved one, is attacked by predators, demonstrates cowardice and a lack of moral character.


----------



## MJS (Apr 12, 2009)

fangjian said:


> This is my entire problem. For people who choose to do nothing at all is ridiculous. I don't respect their decision.
> 
> We can come up with situations that fit our own agenda(for lack of a better word)
> I'm talkin about getting involved. Either,a. by *calling for help* from afar(safest and almost just as easy as doing nothing at all), b.*Getting closure* and making your presence known( less safe), c. *physically involved* through combat or maybe like applying first aid (scariest).
> ...


 
I think for the most part, we're on the same page, although we still view some things differently.  Of course, I'm still interested in hearing your thoughts on when I asked:

"So, when you approach this guy kicking his girlfriends ***, and he pulls out a gun and aims it at you, then what? What happens when you're pulling him off of his girlfriend, she pulls out a knife and stabs you. See what I'm saying? The intent is good on your part, I will give you that. But I'm looking at it from another side. Will that always happen? I don't know, but personally I'm not risking my life in a situation like that."

So, your wife and kids are 100% ok with you physically getting involved with people that you dont even know, and run the risk of getting seriously hurt or killed....all because you wanted to do more than just call for help.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 12, 2009)

Phoenix44 said:


> You know, if you want to issue gratuitous insults about the various political parties, you can go to The Study.


 True, that.


----------



## fangjian (Apr 12, 2009)

MJS said:


> I think for the most part, we're on the same page, although we still view some things differently. Of course, I'm still interested in hearing your thoughts on when I asked:


 Sorry

There might be something better but here's my view on this;
*Level 0*-Do nothing'when you could do something ( driving past a horrible accident and not calling 911 when you cell is sittin on the passenger seat)
*Level 1*- Calling for help ' but your presence isnt nesesarily known to the persons in crisis'( above situation and you call for help)
*Level 2*- You presence is known to the persons in crisis 'and you stickin around'( you see someone getting beaten up and you yell "HEY LEAVE THEM ALONE IVE CALLED THE COPS"
*Level 3*-you are now hands on( above situation except you have gotten phyiccally involved or maybe you see someone choking and you apply the heimlich manuever 'because you know it'




> "So, when you approach this guy kicking his girlfriends ***, and he pulls out a gun and aims it at you, then what?


I guess put my hands up, try to be calm and persuade him not to kill me



> What happens when you're pulling him off of his girlfriend, she pulls out a knife and stabs you.


Then I'm bleeding I guess.  Hopefull if anyone witnessed they won't be at *level 0. *lol


> See what I'm saying? The intent is good on your part, I will give you that. But I'm looking at it from another side. Will that always happen? I don't know, but personally I'm not risking my life in a situation like that."


Yeah I know what you're saying. From your posts  it seems to me that you will never go to Levels 2-3, and if someone wants to do Level 0, that's ok with you.  Am I right?





> So, your wife and kids are 100% ok with you physically getting involved with people that you dont even know, and run the risk of getting seriously hurt or killed....all because you wanted to do more than just call for help.


My wife knows i'm not a moron and is comfortable with my judgement.  I'm not running into burglarized houses or giving mouth to mouth resusitacion to some addict(or anyone for that matter) on the street. Hey how do you know I'm married w/ kids?  My website?


----------



## MJS (Apr 12, 2009)

fangjian said:


> Sorry
> 
> There might be something better but here's my view on this;
> *Level 0*-Do nothing'when you could do something ( driving past a horrible accident and not calling 911 when you cell is sittin on the passenger seat)
> ...


 
I think for the sake of the thread this is a good breakdown.   





> I guess put my hands up, try to be calm and persuade him not to kill me


 
There was a thread on here not long ago about a guy who has a CCW, was in a Burger King and shot the guy who was robbing the place.  I commented the following:

"As always, anytime I find myself in these types of threads, I say the same thing....I'm not anti-gun. I have no issues with someone owning or carrying. However, if that is what you choose to do, then make sure that you can handle yourself in situations like we see here. To think that an occasional trip to the range, where its just you and the paper target that doesnt shoot back, with nobody else around, with pleanty of light and no stress, well, I think those folks are kidding themselves and the risk of playing hero runs higher than if you did nothing at all. Bottom line...be safe, use your head, and if you decide to act, make damn sure you know what you're doing. "

Same thing here.  If you dont want to act, thats fine.  If you do, then make damn sure you are willing to accept what comes your way.  I don't carry a gun, so if I saw someone getting their butt kicked, I know nothing about either of these people.  Maybe it sounds selfish, but I am not going to risk my life getting involved in something that doesnt concern me.  I get involved by calling and staying at a safe distance if possible, to continue to provide the cops details of whats happening.  





> Then I'm bleeding I guess. Hopefull if anyone witnessed they won't be at *level 0. *lol


 
Then again, if you didnt get involved you wouldn't be bleeding.  




> Yeah I know what you're saying. From your posts it seems to me that you will never go to Levels 2-3, and if someone wants to do Level 0, that's ok with you. Am I right?


 
Nope, I probably wont go to 2 or 3, unless its someone I know.  Again, sound selfish?  Probably does, but at least I can say that the person that I know that I'm helping probably wont start kicking my *** too. LOL.  

Seriously though....the majority of the time, I will most likely do something, and that will be calling.  Most recently, I was in a shopping plaza not far from my condo.  I noticed a car, engine running, with a guy slumped against the drivers door.  He was in the car.  Now, I could have pulled up behind him, got out and knocked to see if he was ok, but instead I called the police.  I actually stayed in the plaza until they got there, and it seemed that he was just sleeping.  

I could have kept driving, but didn't because had I done that and found out later the guy died or was already dead, I'd probably feel like ****.  So it satisfied me to know that he was ok.  I did my part.  I called for help.  Help came and the guy was ok.   I can't control what others do, nor can I demand they do something, nor should I shun them for not doing anything.  If they don't then they dont.  I accept the fact that some people just dont want to get involved.  I, like you, get involved, just not to your extent. 






> My wife knows i'm not a moron and is comfortable with my judgement. I'm not running into burglarized houses or giving mouth to mouth resusitacion to some addict(or anyone for that matter) on the street. Hey how do you know I'm married w/ kids? My website?


 
My wife would probably not want me getting physically involved, but has no issues with me calling and getting involved that way.  

Yes, I looked at your site.   Very nice BTW.   Seeing that we live in the same state, if you're ever interested in getting together for a workout, let me know. 

Mike


----------



## fangjian (Apr 12, 2009)

MJS said:


> Then again, if you didnt get involved you wouldn't be bleeding.


Damn you mjs, you said I got stabbed and what would I do if I got stabbed.  lol This is not my fault. 

I do understand that this does happen.  




> Nope, I probably wont go to 2 or 3, unless its someone I know. Again, sound selfish? Probably does, but at least I can say that the person that I know that I'm helping probably wont start kicking my *** too. LOL.


  Ooh you said 'probably' wouldn't got to 2 or 3.  Which means you might.  I knew you were a hero like me.lol




> I could have kept driving, but didn't because had I done that and found out later the guy died or was already dead, I'd probably feel like ****. So it satisfied me to know that he was ok. I did my part. I called for help. Help came and the guy was ok.  I can't control what others do, nor can I demand they do something, nor should I shun them for not doing anything. If they don't then they dont. I accept the fact that some people just dont want to get involved. I, like you, get involved, just not to your extent.


 I think I generally shun those who do nothing 'and could'. 



> Yes, I looked at your site.  Very nice BTW.  Seeing that we live in the same state, if you're ever interested in getting together for a workout, let me know.
> 
> Mike


 You are too kind.  Yeah no doubt.  We aren't that far away so let me know if you guys have any seminars etc.  You are welcome at my place anytime.  I am mostly interested in teaching Balintawak lately.  Where do you train/teach?


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 13, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Just a question. Was Jesus a coward?
> 
> We who are Christians are commanded to be like Jesus. I can't do it, I'm too weak. He went freely to His death, without resistance, without violence. He even cured the Centurian who was hurt when one of His disciples tried to protect Him.
> 
> Non-violence is a virtue, according to many. It requires a discipline that is beyond my ability, that's for sure. Like you, I could not stand by and watch my loved one attacked and do nothing. And perhaps many who would not offer resistance are indeed afraid for their own well-being only. Perhaps not. I don't know. I don't know if I am qualified to judge.


 
Sir, i have to say that what you wrote here was one of the most humbling things I've read in quite a while. I would consider myself a christian because I sincerely believe, in the same instance I consider myself weak because I still let my mouth and sometimes my fists get the better of me. 

I will say that I do disagree with one thing, and that is that Jesus did engage in warfare and as a result-violence. The only difference is that Jesus was engaged with spiritual violence. Jesus was given the order to go to Earth and die for the sake of saving humanity from spiritual death and he did so selflessly_. _In the same instance the American serviceman throughout this nation's history, has gone to foreign lands to willingly fight and sometimes lay down his life to free hundreds of millions from tyranny and death. In some cases he was ridiculed, mocked and spat on for doing so. I can't think of anything more Christlike. Thanks for your service.


----------



## MJS (Apr 13, 2009)

fangjian said:


> Damn you mjs, you said I got stabbed and what would I do if I got stabbed. lol This is not my fault.
> 
> I do understand that this does happen.


 





> Ooh you said 'probably' wouldn't got to 2 or 3. Which means you might. I knew you were a hero like me.lol


 
LOL, of course I also said unless it was someone I knew.  I'm not jumping to the aid of some guy and girl fighting on the street corner or in a parked car, when I dont know who they are.  




> I think I generally shun those who do nothing 'and could'.


 
And thats fine.  Keep in mind that some people don't want to get involved out of fear of retaliation.  I've had people call things in, and say that they won't speak to an officer face to face, but they'll talk on the phone.  I mean think about it...if you live in a bad neighborhood, and fear the gangs, the punks, the drug dealers, you cant really blame someone for not wanting to do anything.  Again, there are ones that do, but they still shield themselves by wanting to be anonymous and again, thats fine.  They did their part and thats all that matters. 




> You are too kind. Yeah no doubt. We aren't that far away so let me know if you guys have any seminars etc. You are welcome at my place anytime. I am mostly interested in teaching Balintawak lately. Where do you train/teach?


 
I train at Middletown Kenpo.  I also train Arnis.  Thanks for the offer to train.  I think it would be cool to exchange ideas. 

Mike


----------



## fangjian (Apr 13, 2009)

MJS said:


> And thats fine. Keep in mind that some people don't want to get involved out of fear of retaliation. I've had people call things in, and say that they won't speak to an officer face to face, but they'll talk on the phone. I mean think about it...if you live in a bad neighborhood, and fear the gangs, the punks, the drug dealers, you cant really blame someone for not wanting to do anything. Again, there are ones that do, but they still shield themselves by wanting to be anonymous and again, thats fine. They did their part and thats all that matters.


 
Good point.  I'm just talking about lazy people though.




> I train at Middletown Kenpo. I also train Arnis. Thanks for the offer to train. I think it would be cool to exchange ideas.
> 
> Mike


I'll let you know of any upcoming seminars or anything.


----------



## chinto (Apr 24, 2009)

hay make your call on the situation.. if you call the tune you may have to pay a piper, but will you sleep at night if you do not become involved?  your call, and you pay the butcher perhaps.  Either way if you do step in some one will be paying a butchers bill it's very likely.


----------



## Zero (Apr 29, 2009)

If one is not prepared to defend or stand up for one's loved ones; it's time for those loved ones to find another loved one.


I ain't got nothing against no hippies or Jesus.


----------

