Anecdotal vs. empirical

[JR 137]

So crocodile awareness is self defense?

Let's say crocodiles are a protected species, and there's a harsh penalty for killing them. If I killed one because it was attacking me, and could realistically prove it was either me or the crocodile, would it be accurate to say I killed it/acted in self defense?

If a venomous spider that was protected was crawling up my arm and I squashed it, couldn't I realistically claim SD as well?

Perhaps for the "self defense defense definition purists" out there, we should include living things in the definition

I think this is getting pretty stupid.

The problem is there's a select few who continually derail threads over their definition of self defense.

And there are times when "consensual fighting" IS self defense. Think about high school where there's a bully who won't leave you alone, no matter what you've tried - ignoring, running, telling authorities, etc. If you don't take a stand and fight, it'll just continue. By "consentually fighting" him after school, you're potentially putting an end to the cycle. You're defending your dignity, emotions, pride (if you feel this fits and somehow that's wrong to do), and physical safety now and in this scenario in the long term. Sorry, there's nothing consentual about that fight even though you agreed to fight at a predetermined time or place, even if you're the one who set the time and place.

Now take that school-aged kid scenario and apply it to adults in the bar, recreational setting, etc., where there's a guy who won't leave you or someone close to you alone, and it keeps happening and won't stop no matter what you do.

IMO people need to stop derailing every thread they see someone say "self defense." It gets QUITE old.

 

[RTKDCMB]

If a venomous spider that was protected was crawling up my arm and I squashed it, couldn't I realistically claim SD as well?

If a venomous spider was crawling up my arm it wouldn't be protected for long.

 

[jobo]

Let's say crocodiles are a protected species, and there's a harsh penalty for killing them. If I killed one because it was attacking me, and could realistically prove it was either me or the crocodile, would it be accurate to say I killed it/acted in self defense?

If a venomous spider that was protected was crawling up my arm and I squashed it, couldn't I realistically claim SD as well?

Perhaps for the "self defense defense definition purists" out there, we should include living things in the definition

I think this is getting pretty stupid.

The problem is there's a select few who continually derail threads over their definition of self defense.

And there are times when "consensual fighting" IS self defense. Think about high school where there's a bully who won't leave you alone, no matter what you've tried - ignoring, running, telling authorities, etc. If you don't take a stand and fight, it'll just continue. By "consentually fighting" him after school, you're potentially putting an end to the cycle. You're defending your dignity, emotions, pride (if you feel this fits and somehow that's wrong to do), and physical safety now and in this scenario in the long term. Sorry, there's nothing consentual about that fight even though you agreed to fight at a predetermined time or place, even if you're the one who set the time and place.

Now take that school-aged kid scenario and apply it to adults in the bar, recreational setting, etc., where there's a guy who won't leave you or someone close to you alone, and it keeps happening and won't stop no matter what you do.

IMO people need to stop derailing every thread they see someone say "self defense." It gets QUITE old.

yes agree entirely, the concept of self defence should be wide enough to include defending your dignity , but no so wide as to include locking your front door at night, somewhere in the middle there is a sensible discussion waiting to get out

 

[hoshin1600]

if everyone would just use the same terminology as i do ...we would all get along damit.

 

[Steve]

Where of you think the techniques which work in MMA came from? Was judo was like the WWE until people took their gi off and did it in a cage?

People fighting, which isn't self defense. Right?

 

[JR 137]

yes agree entirely, the concept of self defence should be wide enough to include defending your dignity , but no so wide as to include locking your front door at night, somewhere in the middle there is a sensible discussion waiting to get out

So then why do people lock their doors?

To protect their property and themselves. That's not paranoia nor any other mental condition; it's just common sense. Protecting yourself from potential harm IS self defense. No different than getting a guard dog, alarm, nor any other deterrent. Yes, some people go to the extreme. Ever see one of those doomsday preppers shows?

On another note...
Why is it called "common sense?" Common sense doesn't seem too common nowadays.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

if everyone would just use the same terminology as i do ...we would all get along damit.

Sorry, Hoshin. I couldn't resist the urge to "disagree" with that.

 

[jobo]

So then why do people lock their doors?

To protect their property and themselves. That's not paranoia nor any other mental condition; it's just common sense. Protecting yourself from potential harm IS self defense. No different than getting a guard dog, alarm, nor any other deterrent. Yes, some people go to the extreme. Ever see one of those doomsday preppers shows?

On another note...
Why is it called "common sense?" Common sense doesn't seem too common nowadays.

but then we are just resurrecting the silly debate we have both been critic a critic of.
I look at it this way , if I paid for a,self,defence course and all they told me was lock your door,don't go out at night and get an alarm system I would be very peeved , as that might indeed keep me safer, but it wasn't at all what I had in mind when I paid my money and the nice crime prevention officer will pop round and tell me that for nothing. There are multiple ways of reducing your likely hood of being a victim of crime or the,consequences of that crime, that don't dealt fit in to the concept of being able to defend yourself

 

[Gerry Seymour]

but then we are just resurrecting the silly debate we have both been critic a critic of.
I look at it this way , if I paid for a,self,defence course and all they told me was lock your door,don't go out at night and get an alarm system I would be very peeved , as that might indeed keep me safer, but it wasn't at all what I had in mind when I paid my money and the nice crime prevention officer will pop round and tell me that for nothing

It would depend how the course was marketed. If I market a course as being about physical self-defense (how to deal with an attacker physically), then that stuff doesn't belong in there, nor does target hardening, etc. If I market it as being about how to avoid being a victim, then those things definitely belong in there - some would argue they should be in there to the exclusion of physical technique. There are things I teach in a "self-defense" course, which I never had to be told, but which seem to turn on lightbulbs for some attendees. So, though they feel too "common sense" to me, I teach them anyway.

 

[jobo]

It would depend how the course was marketed. If I market a course as being about physical self-defense (how to deal with an attacker physically), then that stuff doesn't belong in there, nor does target hardening, etc. If I market it as being about how to avoid being a victim, then those things definitely belong in there - some would argue they should be in there to the exclusion of physical technique. There are things I teach in a "self-defense" course, which I never had to be told, but which seem to turn on lightbulbs for some attendees. So, though they feel too "common sense" to me, I teach them anyway.

I've put an edit to my last post to that effect.

I don't flash wads of cash about in public and generaly don't carry much on me anyway, that's a really good crime prevention tip, but its not by any,stretch self defence

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Come on, man. I've shared at least one link with you before.

I don't recall seeing them, and would also be interested. Any chance you can relink them, if you still have them?

 

[Martial D]

Not as simple as one might think, after all.

Naw it is. There are 'self defense' programs that specialize in defending against dogs, so why not Crocs.

I change my vote, croc awareness is sd too

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Unless my brain is completely giving out, you're talking about the non-physical stuff (the part I collect in the term "self-protection"). That's why I asked that the way I did. I had read the OP as discussing the physical side, though there's a strong chance that's just my read, as I look back at it.

I was referring to self-defense as a whole, which (in my mind) is both the physical and non-physical aspects.

 

[jobo]

as an side, as an urban game, I photocopied a twenty pound note and went round town folding it invitingly in my hand, putting it down on pavement side tables, it took two hours before someone snatched it from my hand and ran off, I wish I could have,seen their face when they stopped to look at it

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

This isn't really an issue, so long as those discussing at any given time agree to use a specific definition. Paul D and I, for instance, include different material within the scope of "self-defense", but we're capable of discussing it sanely, because we can temporarily adopt each other's definition to discuss what was posted. So, for instance, when Paul posts something about "self-defense", I know he's including what I call "self-protection" (target hardening, de-escalation, etc.), so when I reply to his post, I don't reply as if he meant what I mean when I use the term.

Problems begin when people refuse to accept each others' definition in replying. If I refused to use Paul's definition when replying to him when disagreeing about some point, my arguments would all be strawmen, since they'd be based upon the premise that he uses my definition of SD.

Your second paragraph is exactly why there's the issue. If you have one definition and I have another, how do we choose which definition to use? Or are we both trying to refer to the other persons definition while also talking about our own? It just opens up the door for confusion.

Also, this thread shows that it's not malicious. Your take, my take and Steve's take on SD were all different, which played a part in your debate. I assumed I had been clear with mine (reading over it again it's very clear I was not), and I doubt either you or Steve have the intent of "strawman arguments".

 

[JR 137]

It would depend how the course was marketed. If I market a course as being about physical self-defense (how to deal with an attacker physically), then that stuff doesn't belong in there, nor does target hardening, etc. If I market it as being about how to avoid being a victim, then those things definitely belong in there - some would argue they should be in there to the exclusion of physical technique. There are things I teach in a "self-defense" course, which I never had to be told, but which seem to turn on lightbulbs for some attendees. So, though they feel too "common sense" to me, I teach them anyway.

My mother took a self defense course given by a local police department. It was offered for free through her employer at the time.

According to her, they discussed a lot of things that should be common sense, but apparently aren't. They gave a lot of statistics of circumstances around crimes, such as how often an unknown intruder go into the house through the unlocked front door, times when someone was sitting in the victim's unlocked car waiting for them, etc. She said they even talked about the best place to put your bed in the room and why. They also quoted the statistic of houses with a sign saying they have an alarm (like the "Protected by ADT") in front of their house get broken into significantly less. Same for houses with dogs.

That stuff was only part of the course.

It's not paranoia, for the most part it's just common sense. Yet, common sense isn't the most common thing out there. She said most people were rolling their eyes and bored with that part. That doesn't mean it wasn't necessary or ineffective.

 

[jobo]

My mother took a self defense course given by a local police department. It was offered for free through her employer at the time.

According to her, they discussed a lot of things that should be common sense, but apparently aren't. They gave a lot of statistics of circumstances around crimes, such as how often an unknown intruder go into the house through the unlocked front door, times when someone was sitting in the victim's unlocked car waiting for them, etc. She said they even talked about the best place to put your bed in the room and why. They also quoted the statistic of houses with a sign saying they have an alarm (like the "Protected by ADT") in front of their house get broken into significantly less. Same for houses with dogs.

That stuff was only part of the course.

It's not paranoia, for the most part it's just common sense. Yet, common sense isn't the most common thing out there. She said most people were rolling their eyes and bored with that part. That doesn't mean it wasn't necessary or ineffective.

My mother took a self defense course given by a local police department. It was offered for free through her employer at the time.

According to her, they discussed a lot of things that should be common sense, but apparently aren't. They gave a lot of statistics of circumstances around crimes, such as how often an unknown intruder go into the house through the unlocked front door, times when someone was sitting in the victim's unlocked car waiting for them, etc. She said they even talked about the best place to put your bed in the room and why. They also quoted the statistic of houses with a sign saying they have an alarm (like the "Protected by ADT") in front of their house get broken into significantly less. Same for houses with dogs.

That stuff was only part of the course.

It's not paranoia, for the most part it's just common sense. Yet, common sense isn't the most common thing out there. She said most people were rolling their eyes and bored with that part. That doesn't mean it wasn't necessary or ineffective.

I.

there a line there to cross between good sense and being paranoid, I suggest that positioning you bed in compliance with crime reports has crossed that line

 

[Steve]

Time is short, but I have two quick points, and a question.

First, defining Self Defense is often opportunistic, and shaped by our experiences in the past, and the position we're promoting. It's backwards.

Second, most people cannot even pick a single definition and stick with it, me included. Context matters. I tend to think of self defense as being things you can do to reduce real risk. But self defense is actually not any action at all. It's a justification for breaking a law... a legal defense. Self defense isn't what you do in the moment. It's what you tell the judge after the fact.

The question is this: What would you think if you saw someone dismiss empirical evidence in favor of anecdotal evidence?

 

[jobo]

Time is short, but I have two quick points, and a question.

First, defining Self Defense is often opportunistic, and shaped by our experiences in the past, and the position we're promoting. It's backwards.

Second, most people cannot even pick a single definition and stick with it, me included. Context matters. I tend to think of self defense as being things you can do to reduce real risk. But self defense is actually not any action at all. It's a justification for breaking a law... a legal defense. Self defense isn't what you do in the moment. It's what you tell the judge after the fact.

The question is this: What would you think if you saw someone dismiss empirical evidence in favor of anecdotal evidence?

you sort of answered you own question before asking it

people view are based on their experience and logic, there isn't any real evidence to any of them, you can disagree based on yuor experience and logic, but nothing can be proved either way, which is why this constant asking for evidence is pointless.

my style works for self defence for me, I know that I've used it such, I have no actual evidence of that, no one filmed it. But even if they had it wouldnt mean it would work the next time or for somebody else.
posting a you tube vid of someone else using your style effectively in a ring an octagon or the street, proves absolutely nothing about your ability to use it tomorrow against an unknown attacker in an un known location

 

[Flying Crane]

yes its a minority. i didnt mean that chi ball throwing was growing more popular. i just used that as an example on the extreme. more common are unqualified teachers making stuff up as they go and making wild claims. but like drop bear said its kinda the same thing.



i disagree with the premise. yes we live in a youtube/ google age of information, that is inconsequential. people are not being fooled into bad martial arts, they are choosing it on their accord. like i said earlier , we are deluding ourselves. most people really dont want to put in the effort to learn to fight. they would rather buy into some mumbo jumbo that is easy to do and no one can call them out on it as BS. because " well you would die if i showed you" they want to be the archetype hero that get the girl but they dont want to actually have to slay the dragon.
its not about information, science has been around a long time now and people are quite sophisticated, yet people still believe there is a man that lives in the sky that if you dont worship him correctly he will send you to hell, to burn in fire for eternity. oh and btw ,,,the world is flat, man never landed on the moon and sasquatch is real....look it up on youtube.

Those of us who have been doing this stuff for a while have certainly met such folks. I don't think this really describes many people, tho. I think they are a definite minority, and most people are more realistic. Again, the ease of access for information makes a small thing seem much more common.