Do you need to hate your attacker?

[MJS]

Well, it's the conflict I had with the teacher saying "you have to hate!" and eventually resulted in my dropping out of the school. To divource this conflict from the One who I follow and worship, namely Jesus Christ, takes away the entire origin of where the conflict comes from. I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and of course His teachings against hate and pro love of everyone, including your enemy is where this conflict comes from. There would be no point in writing the post without including why I have a problem with hating anyone, including an attacker, even if they are in the wrong. I believe I could even kill an attacker if there was no other alternative, but I would pray for his soul afterwards, hate what he is doing but not hate the man himself.

If we really want to get technical about this, then we really should not be fighting at all or training for anything more than inner peace and the history and enjoyment of the art, nothing more. I say this, because if we can't bring ourselves to hate or be angry at someone, then instead of trading blows, we should just be as peaceful as possible, always resolve any conflict with kind words instead of angry ones, etc.

IMHO, and this goes back to what I've said in thread about prison and reform...if people really wanted to reform, they'd never end up back behind bars. We all control how we are, and what path we want to take.

That being said, if someone chooses to take the wrong path, and attempt to inflict harm upon me or someone else, then no, I do not feel any remorse for them, nor do I feel sorry for anything that happens to them, either by me or someone else. Hopefully the guy would think back and reflect back on what he did, and maybe think twice about doing the same thing again, but no, I'm not going to pray for him and hope that he gets better. He's the one that needs to do the praying, not me.

 

[Cryozombie]

I think Hate can have a place after a conflict.

If you feel sorry for your opponent, for what you have done to him/her, the outcome of the battle and whatnot... who's to say that if it happens again, you will not hesitate... and wind up injured, dead, or Scarred mentally in a worse way.

Hating someone for what they did/tried to do is a good defense mechanism againts that guilt that we build "post conflict"... as are feelings of contempt, disgust, and self-rightousness.

I think these things have their place... I just dont think they are DURRING combat.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I do not disagree with your opinion and but I think there is a delineation between and between anger and aggression. The aggression that you refer to, I agree is necessary, whereas the anger that I referred to is detrimental to the focussed mindset or the calm-yet-alert mind that you alluded to.

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

Anger can certainly take over and cloud judgment, especially for those unused to dealing with the effects of anger and aggression.

For those who can control the adrenal response, who have learned to do it through training and experience, it's an extremely powerful biological tool.

 

[sgtmac_46]

It's kind of a contradiction........those who live their lives with a high degree of caution avoid the kind of situations that tend to get them killed. Ironically, however, their caution is MORE likely to get them killed if they accidentally find themselves in dangerous situations that require aggressive action.

Conversely, those who have a more aggressive bent tend to find themselves in situations that are more likely to get them hurt or killed........but are, likewise, more capable of surviving those types of situations.

And this paradox is the source of many arguments about what is the best suggestion for self-defense and survival.......folks of either camp disagree with the other......but both are correct......at different times.

 

[exile]

And this paradox is the source of many arguments about what is the best suggestion for self-defense and survival.......folks of either camp disagree with the other......but both are correct......at different times.

And sometimes the same person can be in both camps, at different times. You see this in, of all places, Hamlet, where early in the play Hamlet, praising his loyal, stoic friend Horatio, says,

Give me that man that is not passion's slave,
And I will wear him in my heart's core, ay, in my heart of hearts.

—i.e., that Horatio's careful control of his feelings, his lack of impulsiveness and emotional extravagance ('passion'), is a great and endearing character strength. The funny thing is that much later in the play, after the cock-up with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and the pirates that leaves Hamlet free and them dead, he tells this very same Horatio,

And praised be rashness for it—let us know,
Our indiscretion sometimes serves us well,
When our deep plots do pall...

seeming to endorse the view that impulsive reaction trumps reasoned, careful planning.

Mind you, it's hard to say from the outcome which view was correct.... neither of them seems to have worked out too well, going by the body count by end of Act V... :shrug:

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

One teacher in my past emphasized hating your attacker. Now to be fair, he was referring to somebody out on the streets who has attacked you without provocation who is trying to kill or rape you or both, a very serious situation to be sure. "You've got to hate!" he would say why we were doing our drills.

Not real keen on this type of training logic. I think that his intent was to have you train with an intensity that would help you to be effective in an SD situation, but there are better ways to do that.

This caused much tension and a feeling of being uncomfortable, even out and out anxiety on my part, and I do suffer from an anxiety, disorder, as I am a Christian, and it is clearly against the teachings of Jesus to hate anybody, even your enemy, in fact your supposed to love everyone, including your enemy. Is it necessary to hate your attacker, or can you merely be determined to stop the attack by any means necessary, running if at all possible without hating your attacker? Does hatred actually give you the edge you need to survive, or is this teacher something of a radical in his philosophy? (Well, I think he is something of a radical, but that's an aside) All opinions appreciated.

Hatred requires an emotional investment. It also requires that I desire to do harm to another, not merely prevent them from harming you. The goal of self defense is to extricate yourself from danger. Sometimes, this can only be accomplished through the application of physical force. But even then, the goal is personal safety, not retibutive strike.

Also, hate can lead you to do sloppy things, such as prolong a fight in order to gain some personal satisfaction. The longer a fight goes on, the greater the chances of you being injured, which is the main reason that I stated that I don't care for your former teacher's training methodology in this respect.

Do what you must to get out of harm's way. Do whatever you must, but do not do so with malice. If the attacker is injured or even killed as a result, so be it; he attacked and now suffers the consequences. Just remember that there could be legal consequences for you if you inflict injury or death after the attacker is rendered suitably harmless.

Also, hatred does not give you a survival edge. If anything, it can cause you to be angry when you needn't be and thus increase emotional stress and therefore shorten your life. It can lead you to do unreasonable things that you might not otherwise do, things which can cost you personally, professionally, and even physically. This is because hate and anger can artificially induce a phisiological fight or flight response when there is no present threat. Precisely the reasons that Jesus tells us to love our enemies.

Lastly, Jesus' words about living boil down to love God and your neighbor. If everyone did just the second half of this, our world would be a much nicer place. Remember that love does not mean being a doormat, nor does it absolve an attacker of wrongdoing.

We are to live peacably with our neighbors to the best of our ability. When our neighbors assault us and prevent that from happening, it is up to us to resolve the situation as peacably as possible. Sometimes, peacably as possible means putting your neighbor in the hospital, as that is the only way to end the attack without killing said neighbor. Hate should never enter the equasion.

As a believer in Christ myself, I can see where you are coming from. Given that the last Gallup poll that I recall (about five years ago) claimed that 80% of the country claims to Christian of some denomination, I think that it is a worthy topic of discussion.

Daniel

 

[Em MacIntosh]

You can't hurt smeone without malice. We learn that malice is a bad thing and unless we are combatants for a living we spend more time trying to get along with society than we do fostering traits that only serve to hurt. Sometimes you need those abilities but rarely. I think it's a matter of terminology. Hate is a poorly defined word but it implies dehumanization to make it easier to hurt someone. Once you declare to yourself you are the force of good and declare someone else the force of evil you've taken away that respect of considering them human. This helps close off your empathy and reduces your reluctance to injure them. Needless to say this makes you more capable of defending yourself. I'd say that what he's referring to is the correct use of the "fight response" in the "fight or flight" scenario. You don't have much time to second guess yourself so if you've made the split decision to fight remember that a threat has to be neutralized to ensure your safety. If hate (however you define it) gives you an edge use that edge, just understand the limitations.

 

[TV954]

I agree that for those who are trained, excessive emotion of any type may cause hesitation or misjudgment or may cause a response out of proportion to the force initiated. For an untrained person, however, using emotion as a trigger or motivating energy might be the only thing that allows them to cross that line in their head that divides not wanting to hurt another from being able to exert force for personal protection. For an untrained person, the thought and action and sheer violence of what is involved in an attack is a shock on many levels and strong emotion, if harnessed in the right way, can be positive.

 

[morph4me]

You can't hurt smeone without malice. We learn that malice is a bad thing and unless we are combatants for a living we spend more time trying to get along with society than we do fostering traits that only serve to hurt. Sometimes you need those abilities but rarely. I think it's a matter of terminology. Hate is a poorly defined word but it implies dehumanization to make it easier to hurt someone. Once you declare to yourself you are the force of good and declare someone else the force of evil you've taken away that respect of considering them human. This helps close off your empathy and reduces your reluctance to injure them. Needless to say this makes you more capable of defending yourself. I'd say that what he's referring to is the correct use of the "fight response" in the "fight or flight" scenario. You don't have much time to second guess yourself so if you've made the split decision to fight remember that a threat has to be neutralized to ensure your safety. If hate (however you define it) gives you an edge use that edge, just understand the limitations.

I disagree, people are hurt everyday without malice. People are trampled by others trying to survive a fire, or escape gunshots, no malice. You don't need malice to hurt someone who's trying to hurt you, you need the will to survive and the skill and luck to make it happen. You also don't have to declare yourself a force for good, or your attacker a force for evil, you just have to have the desire to live. You are responsible for your own survival, as is your attacker. If an attacker chooses the wrong victim and gets hurt, it isn't the victims responsibility, it's the attackers. No attack means there's nothing to defend against and no one gets hurt.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

You can't hurt smeone without malice. We learn that malice is a bad thing and unless we are combatants for a living we spend more time trying to get along with society than we do fostering traits that only serve to hurt. Sometimes you need those abilities but rarely.

Malice means that you are setting out to do harm to another. If I am attacked and I defend, even with lethal force, I did not set out to do harm to another. Huge difference.

If attacked and my goal becomes to harm or kill an attacker, whether or not the attacker breaks off the attack, then that is malice.

If I derive pleasure from hurting my attacker, that is malice.

Keep in mind that I only brought up defending without malice towards the attacker because I am responding to someone who is trying to maintain a Christian approach to self defense.

I think it's a matter of terminology. Hate is a poorly defined word but it implies dehumanization to make it easier to hurt someone. Once you declare to yourself you are the force of good and declare someone else the force of evil you've taken away that respect of considering them human.

What does this have to do with hate? Declaring myself as a force for good doesn't mean that I'll hate the guy who attacks me. Even if I consder my assailant a force for evil, it does not follow that I hate them.

This helps close off your empathy and reduces your reluctance to injure them. Needless to say this makes you more capable of defending yourself. I'd say that what he's referring to is the correct use of the "fight response" in the "fight or flight" scenario. You don't have much time to second guess yourself so if you've made the split decision to fight remember that a threat has to be neutralized to ensure your safety.

Yes, I agree that that is what his teacher was trying to convey. But fight response isn't hate. That is why I don't approve of teaching fight response in that way. Neutralization of a threat is a matter of urgency, not emotional hatred. I don't hate the tree that is falling towards my car, but I have a strong survival response to swerve to avoid being hit by it. If a tiger springs from its cage at the S/F Zoo, eats the guys who taunted it, then decides that I look tastey too, I don't hate the tiger. But I'll do whatever I need to do not to get eaten, including shooting it dead if I am so equipped, though I'd prefer not to have to kill the animal.

If hate (however you define it) gives you an edge use that edge, just understand the limitations.

Hate cannot give you an edge in a confrontation. Hatred requires thought. You don't have time to formulate hate when you're attacked. The issue of hatred towards an attacker doesn't come until after the attack has passed and you have time to think about what was done to you. Hardly helpful during the attack, but potentially harmful to you (the general you, not you personally) down the road in the form of holding a grudge and internalizing anger over an event that has already passed.

Daniel

 

[BLACK LION]

training to hate your attacker brings with it a level of emotional mismanagement.... hate does not equate to violence... it is merely an emotional fixation on something which you really shouldnt have...

I look at it from a neutral standpoint... I derive no pleasure or no sorrow... just move throught the target and on to the next... its time to work so be as professional as possible... habituating violence does not bring with it a level of hate for anyone... not even a sociopathic axe murderer... it brings acceptance of the task at hand and with no emotion in the matter one can clearly be un biased and decisive...

If you must hate you would be attacker then you would hate everyone in the world including friends and family becuase everyone has the potential and capacity to commit violence agaist you and all should be suspected as capable of such....

If you are too busy hating people then you are not at 100% emotionally... I can politely crush someones throat at anytime of anyday and have no emotinal attachment to doing it... I can go right back to eating my bigmack like it never happened.... controlled violence has no emotion and no preference of any kind... its there to use when you need it and turn off when you dont.... hating something binds you to it entirely and you dont want that baggage...

I would rather kill out of instinct than out of hate for someone or something... taking a life with hate as a motive is like murder in cold blood... habituate violence by making it instinctual not emotional...

 

[shihansmurf]

I view any person that I have to inflict harm upon as an obstacle, nothing more. I have no emotional investment in them at all. I don't hate, I don't love. I just look at them and dehumanize them to just being a fleshy thing that I must injure or kill to meet whatever goal I have at that moment. Worked well for me during my deployments, works well for me in self defense situations.

Just my view
Mark

 

[nigebj]

Your attacker has signalled an intent to hurt or even kill you, they simply need to be stopped. They are most likely acting irrationally for any number of reasons - mental health, alcohol, drugs. Concentrate on the job at hand - see another day. Hopefully your reflexes and training will cause you to be able to stop the attack, make sure it is stopped (immobilize or significantly restrict the attacker) and then get out of there. Emotion will come when you reflect on the situation, you'll not have time to engage emotion during the attack, you'll likely experience surprise and fear, at best you can harness what nature gives you in terms of your fight-or-flight response.

 

[Tez3]

The problem with a resurrected thread is that it reminds us of so many members who don't post here anymore, so many on this one.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

hating your attacker.

You don't have to hate the attacker. It gives you a chance to test your MA skill.

 

[nigebj]

The problem with a resurrected thread is that it reminds us of so many members who don't post here anymore, so many on this one.

The advantage is, the question and replies are as relevant today as 12 years ago.

 

[Steve]

I would hope that the answer is always no.

 

[jayoliver00]

One teacher in my past emphasized hating your attacker. Now to be fair, he was referring to somebody out on the streets who has attacked you without provocation who is trying to kill or rape you or both, a very serious situation to be sure. "You've got to hate!" he would say why we were doing our drills. This caused much tension and a feeling of being uncomfortable, even out and out anxiety on my part, and I do suffer from an anxiety, disorder, as I am a Christian, and it is clearly against the teachings of Jesus to hate anybody, even your enemy, in fact your supposed to love everyone, including your enemy. Is it necessary to hate your attacker, or can you merely be determined to stop the attack by any means necessary, running if at all possible without hating your attacker? Does hatred actually give you the edge you need to survive, or is this teacher something of a radical in his philosophy? (Well, I think he is something of a radical, but that's an aside) All opinions appreciated.

When you're a Noob, it's good to get amped up & hateful to go full blast. Probably will gas out fast, but that's usually the best bet for people who aren't good at fighting yet in a RL situation.

After years of real training and sparring from light to KO power, is when you get more relaxed, know how to conserve energy, etc. and you fight like it's just another day of KO sparring time.

At the Fighter level w/5-10 fights at least (IMO), you can chose to be playful if it helps, or switch back & forth from full blast "11" to playful.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Do you need to hate your attacker?​

Someone attacks you in the street, Your front kick knock him down without thinking. While he is on the ground, you tell him, "I don't mean to hurt you this bad. Please don't hate me."

 

[Tez3]

The advantage is, the question and replies are as relevant today as 12 years ago.

I don't think it is relevant, if you've been on this site for the past few days you'll know there's been a quite acrimonious discussion on anger, resurrecting this seems more than accidentally picking a thread that has the same theme as that discussion.