Fundamental pillars of self-defense?

[oftheherd1]

I think "self-defense" should also include "defense for your love ones", or even "defense for others (such as a stranger on the street)" and not just "defense for yourself". You can hit me any way you want to, but if you dare to hit my love one, I'll hit you that even your own mother won't be able to recognize you.

Interesting idea that I want to think on. Certainly the law normally allows one to take action in protecting family and sometimes others. And such actions may lead to violence between you and the one requiring you to protect family or some other person. Yeah, I think what you say works. I guess thinking done. ;-)

 

[drop bear]

I disagree somewhat Steve. My military analogy wasn't meant to be stretched that far. My point is that warfare incorporates many disciplines besides fighting as should a good self-defense program. Of course warfare mandates combat, but preparing for fighting is part of "self-defense" training just like combat is part of military operations.

It's like shooting skills for Cops. Most cops wont ever shoot anyone, getting into a shoot means all other options have failed...and LE requires MANY various skills so why train so much for it?

Because, even though it's rare, if you can't do it when "the balloon goes up" you will probably be dead.

An average, untrained person looking for "self-defense" training is probably really just looking for fighting techniques. I think (at least personally) that a wholistic SD program has to cover the full spectrum.

Ours don't by the way. 30 rounds a year or something silly.

And they still manage to hit bad guys.

 

[drop bear]

I think how each of us uses language causes confusion (probably stress and anger, too) I know I'm to blame for some of it around here, probably a lot of it. When I use the term "fighting" I mean all aspects of what "I" consider fighting. I mean self defense, sparring, competing, taking someone down and securing them (for arrest, removal, until authorities arrive) one step contact drills with resisitance, brawls, sucker punches, ambushes whatever. Anything that pits one person against another person(s) that concerns physical resistance/contact, to me, is fighting.

It's why I always say Martial Arts is based on fighting. (regardless if I'm right or wrong) I consider everything in grappling as fighting. I consider everything in striking as fighting. It's the way I use the language.

It's a hard habit to break, it's what I've always used and meant.

Most people have a pretty simple idea behind self defence. Some people don't. I just went through this on the can you be an expert thread.

If you overcomplicate an issue you could present as an authority on it because nobody understands what you are on about.

 

[Buka]

If you overcomplicate an issue you could present as an authority on it because nobody understands what you are on about.

What, Martial Artists overcomplicating an issue online? Who us?

 

[Steve]

I think that the term "self defense" has the connotations of physically defending oneself. The other pillars are probably better called prevention, preparation and perhaps social/life engineering.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

I think you're right. "Self defense" does connote some things to most people. But I also think it's an interesting to listen to the diversity of the definitions. Some people consider self defense to be strictly physically defending oneself. Others of you here add more to the mix. for some, self defense is a simple concept. For others, it is very, very complex. For some, it's an afterthought, and for others it is a professional occupation.

Who's right and who's wrong? I don't know. Maybe everyone's got part of the puzzle.

Was watching the American Ninja Warrior show just the other day. My kids and I like to watch that show, and my 6 year old is convinced she's going to be on it. But that's an aside. Point is, on the show, there was a short bio of one of the contestants who stated that the American Ninja Warrior show saved her life. See, she was assaulted outside her house, and because she was so fit and strong, she fought back. Guy had a knife, came behind her, held it to her throat and said something like, "Stop fighting or your dead." She "wrestled" with him (the term used on the show), until she got him to drop the knife. He ended up taking her purse and running.

Really, it just goes back to the earthquake kit analogy. What did she have in her self defense "kit?" She isn't a trained fighter, but her fitness level and her strength of will are what counted, more than learning some techniques.

But what techniques would have helped her, had this guy decided to stab her a dozen times and leave her there? My opinion, neither BJJ, WC, Karate nor anything else would have stopped it. If that guy wanted to kill her, she'd be dead. He had a knife to her throat. "Self Defense" training wouldn't have helped her at all.

What mattered was her fitness level and her willingness to fight back, because the impression I got from the story is that this guy didn't want to kill her. He wanted to sexually assault her, and in the end, he failed for reasons other than her technical ability to perform "self defense" techniques.

 

[Steve]

Most people have a pretty simple idea behind self defence. Some people don't. I just went through this on the can you be an expert thread.

If you overcomplicate an issue you could present as an authority on it because nobody understands what you are on about.

Drop Bear, it's hard to make a living doing something anyone can do. You can't be a specialist if you're not special. Right?

 

[Jenna]

I am feeling dense - working on some plumbing and carpentry issues and failing at each attempt, with my frustrated muddled brain on over load, I am afraid I do not understand your question. Can you please try again Jenna?

The apology is mine Brian as the question is too obtuse.. I think at this point it is a detraction from the direction of the thread though I still wonder enough to ask of you.. is it not our conceit to believe we have some right in defending our selves by necessarily inflicting hurt or damage on our attacker? we say it is not right for them to attack us and but it is ok for us to attack them -and name it defence. Why? because the law make provision for it.. and thus we justify our action.. see I have killed him and but it is ok.. it is SD and perfectly legal and thus I am exonerated.. By what I believe, this is a conceit. Because your thinking Brian is less clouded than mine I would be interested to understand how you see it, Jx

 

[Steve]

The apology is mine Brian as the question is too obtuse.. I think at this point it is a detraction from the direction of the thread though I still wonder enough to ask of you.. is it not our conceit to believe we have some right in defending our selves by necessarily inflicting hurt or damage on our attacker? we say it is not right for them to attack us and but it is ok for us to attack them -and name it defence. Why? because the law make provision for it.. and thus we justify our action.. see I have killed him and but it is ok.. it is SD and perfectly legal and thus I am exonerated.. By what I believe, this is a conceit. Because your thinking Brian is less clouded than mine I would be interested to understand how you see it, Jx

Jenna, I hear your points. I've always appreciated non-violence and am a huge proponent of the teachings of Gandhi, in particular, on the topic. But Gandhi was very clear in his writings to distinguish between the will to defend oneself and act with violence and the CHOICE to act with violence.

So, I would say that I appreciate your thoughts. The key distinction would be one of intent. When you are faced with a situation (any situation) where you have a choice to act with violence and do not, are you acting out of fear? Lack of willingness or preparedness? Or are you making a choice, because without conscious choice to eschew violence, it is an act of cowardice. Or said another way, if you do not have the capacity for violence (mentally or physically), then you can't choose to be non-violent. And it's only meaningful and moral if it's chosen, and not out of cowardice or a lack of conviction.

 

[Jenna]

Jenna, I hear your points. I've always appreciated non-violence and am a huge proponent of the teachings of Gandhi, in particular, on the topic. But Gandhi was very clear in his writings to distinguish between the will to defend oneself and act with violence and the CHOICE to act with violence.

So, I would say that I appreciate your thoughts. The key distinction would be one of intent. When you are faced with a situation (any situation) where you have a choice to act with violence and do not, are you acting out of fear? Lack of willingness or preparedness? Or are you making a choice, because without conscious choice to eschew violence, it is an act of cowardice. Or said another way, if you do not have the capacity for violence (mentally or physically), then you can't choose to be non-violent. And it's only meaningful and moral if it's chosen, and not out of cowardice or a lack of conviction.

Yes this is exactly how I mean Steve to act or refuse to act with full aforethought and choice.. to choose a position of harm to none.

In this thread is a discussion of how we defend our selves or defend others that we deem are in need of our help. In many cases it is advocated the means of defending our selves in which we become the apportioner of harm. The law provide us with mitigation.. we were minding our own business and were set upon and attacked and by this we acquire rights to harm our attacker to a level that is deemed appropriate, up to and including the death of our attacker if it is warranted by the severity. This we accept.

I am not one to argue with the merit of it, I am asking what is the bigger picture?? That you name Gandi and you can name only but a few others like him in our entire history who can TRULY espouse the simple tenet of harm none shows that we all contain within us this same conceit that our right to survive can in some SD cases countermand the right of another to survive..

So my question it feels naive or contrary to the direction of the thread and but I only post here because the thread is about pillars only these pillars if they are constructed over the foundation that I must trust in the doctrine of "my right over their right" then I am happy have no good business posting any more here against the grain.. xx

 

[Steve]

Yes this is exactly how I mean Steve to act or refuse to act with full aforethought and choice.. to choose a position of harm to none.

In this thread is a discussion of how we defend our selves or defend others that we deem are in need of our help. In many cases it is advocated the means of defending our selves in which we become the apportioner of harm. The law provide us with mitigation.. we were minding our own business and were set upon and attacked and by this we acquire rights to harm our attacker to a level that is deemed appropriate, up to and including the death of our attacker if it is warranted by the severity. This we accept.

I am not one to argue with the merit of it, I am asking what is the bigger picture?? That you name Gandi and you can name only but a few others like him in our entire history who can TRULY espouse the simple tenet of harm none shows that we all contain within us this same conceit that our right to survive can in some SD cases countermand the right of another to survive..

So my question it feels naive or contrary to the direction of the thread and but I only post here because the thread is about pillars only these pillars if they are constructed over the foundation that I must trust in the doctrine of "my right over their right" then I am happy have no good business posting any more here against the grain.. xx

I think this is a great idea for its own thread. I think I see in your post a distinction between whether something is moral and whether it is lawful. There are times when violence can be lawful, but not moral. And times when violence could be considered moral, but not lawful. And of course, examples where it can be both or neither. The distinction between morality and lawfullness is an important one. In this case, several have pointed out that "self defense" is a legal term, and so the conversation seems to be centered around legality and lawfullness, but I personally appreciate your points.

 

[drop bear]

Yes this is exactly how I mean Steve to act or refuse to act with full aforethought and choice.. to choose a position of harm to none.

In this thread is a discussion of how we defend our selves or defend others that we deem are in need of our help. In many cases it is advocated the means of defending our selves in which we become the apportioner of harm. The law provide us with mitigation.. we were minding our own business and were set upon and attacked and by this we acquire rights to harm our attacker to a level that is deemed appropriate, up to and including the death of our attacker if it is warranted by the severity. This we accept.

I am not one to argue with the merit of it, I am asking what is the bigger picture?? That you name Gandi and you can name only but a few others like him in our entire history who can TRULY espouse the simple tenet of harm none shows that we all contain within us this same conceit that our right to survive can in some SD cases countermand the right of another to survive..

So my question it feels naive or contrary to the direction of the thread and but I only post here because the thread is about pillars only these pillars if they are constructed over the foundation that I must trust in the doctrine of "my right over their right" then I am happy have no good business posting any more here against the grain.. xx

Our law and to a certain degree our morality focuses on intent. So the why is as important as what.

If I can morally resolve the why the what takes care of itself.

 

[Jenna]

I think this is a great idea for its own thread. I think I see in your post a distinction between whether something is moral and whether it is lawful. There are times when violence can be lawful, but not moral. And times when violence could be considered moral, but not lawful. And of course, examples where it can be both or neither. The distinction between morality and lawfullness is an important one. In this case, several have pointed out that "self defense" is a legal term, and so the conversation seems to be centered around legality and lawfullness, but I personally appreciate your points.

What do you your self think Steve? since you refer to Gandhi, I wonder do you have insight into what defensive, or other, circumstance might exist where recourse to the law is not the most morally appropriate action? Thank you for your courtesy, Jx

 

[Jenna]

Our law and to a certain degree our morality focuses on intent. So the why is as important as what.

If I can morally resolve the why the what takes care of itself.

Yes agree.. and it is on this basis that most people operate their SD.. as I see it, not JUST SD and but how they interact with others.. For harming us, we see it as a matter of our attacker deserving every thing they get.. he deserved it.. and to assuage the guilt we may have over harming another or mistreating them we recite our doctrines.. what I did was moral, or justified in the eyes of the law, or as we hear much of recently.. it is written in my holy book (some where).. and this is where morality appears to us to become too much of a grey area or become impeachable.

Still that guilt over having hurt some one is there in us all -psychopathy aside- for some reason. It is a lesson we all carry within us before we even lift a finger against another, even in our own defence. Perhaps it is horror or anger that blind us to it. I do not know.. I am the farthest thing from an expert in philosophy or jurisprudence so I only offer personal opinion.. Jx

 

[drop bear]

Yes agree.. and it is on this basis that most people operate their SD.. as I see it, not JUST SD and but how they interact with others.. For harming us, we see it as a matter of our attacker deserving every thing they get.. he deserved it.. and to assuage the guilt we may have over harming another or mistreating them we recite our doctrines.. what I did was moral, or justified in the eyes of the law, or as we hear much of recently.. it is written in my holy book (some where).. and this is where morality appears to us to become too much of a grey area or become impeachable.

Still that guilt over having hurt some one is there in us all -psychopathy aside- for some reason. It is a lesson we all carry within us before we even lift a finger against another, even in our own defence. Perhaps it is horror or anger that blind us to it. I do not know.. I am the farthest thing from an expert in philosophy or jurisprudence so I only offer personal opinion.. Jx

Professional distance. Or being a sociopath they are kind of cousins.

 

[elder999]

Before moving on to more important things, there's this:

I'm pretty sure that if this guy was an amazing duelist, his followers would have recorded it.

Why in the world are you sure "his followers would have recorded it?"

What makes you anyone would be privy to such a recording, if it existed?

What constitutes an "amazing duelist?"

Anyway, I'm simply against these silly platitudes being regurgitated over and over again. Sure, its better not to fight than it is to engage in fighting, but sometimes you don't have a choice.

They're not "silly platitudes." Fighting ability is for when you don't have any choice but to do otherwise. Sometimes, as in that post, the choice is to take a beating, because you don't have the ability to fight-sometimes even for those with the training to do so.

 

[elder999]

Yes agree.. and it is on this basis that most people operate their SD.. as I see it, not JUST SD and but how they interact with others.. For harming us, we see it as a matter of our attacker deserving every thing they get.. he deserved it.. and to assuage the guilt we may have over harming another or mistreating them we recite our doctrines.. what I did was moral, or justified in the eyes of the law, or as we hear much of recently.. it is written in my holy book (some where).. and this is where morality appears to us to become too much of a grey area or become impeachable.

Still that guilt over having hurt some one is there in us all -psychopathy aside- for some reason. It is a lesson we all carry within us before we even lift a finger against another, even in our own defence. Perhaps it is horror or anger that blind us to it. I do not know.. I am the farthest thing from an expert in philosophy or jurisprudence so I only offer personal opinion.. Jx

Nope. No guilt for me-and, admitted sociopathic tendencies aside-I don't think there should be. If someone is going to attempt to injure me or a loved one, and I have no choice but to injure them instead, that's largely a consequence of their actions, not mine.

"Deserved" has nothing to do with it.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Why in the world are you sure "his followers would have recorded it?"

What makes you anyone would be privy to such a recording, if it existed?

What constitutes an "amazing duelist?"

Hanzou knows nothing about MA history or the history of the countries of origin, nor does he care to, so the comment was not at all surprising.

What constitutes an "amazing duelist?"

The one that survived.

 

[Jenna]

.. and I have no choice but to injure them instead,

You have a choice not to injure them in kind, or at all. That may be a choice whose consequences you do not care for because it may take some thing precious from you. Still, the choice does exist and always exists and nothing except you can force you to choose other wise, Jx

 

[Hanzou]

Before moving on to more important things, there's this:



Why in the world are you sure "his followers would have recorded it?"

What makes you anyone would be privy to such a recording, if it existed?

The students of famous masters tend to record their teacher's accomplishments. I'm sure the students of Niten-Ryu love to talk about the great feats of their founder Miyamoto Musashi. Jeet Kune Do students love to talk about how awesome Bruce Lee was. Gracie Jiujitsu practitioners know all about the accomplishment of the Gracies.

What constitutes an "amazing duelist?"

Someone who fought a lot and won/survived a lot.

They're not "silly platitudes." Fighting ability is for when you don't have any choice but to do otherwise. Sometimes, as in that post, the choice is to take a beating, because you don't have the ability to fight-sometimes even for those with the training to do so.

The purpose of getting trained is so that you never need to make that choice. If you decide to take a beating, you're putting your life in someone else's hands, because that beating has a very good chance of killing you. If you're willingly going to surrender your life to someone else, why train in the first place?

Additionally, what a terrible thing to say to a student. "Hey, go ahead and take that beating, because sometimes its better not to fight, than it is to fight! Let that perp do whatever he wants to do to you. Hey, you could be killed, but at least you lived up to the quote of a pampered 17th century kenjutsu instructor."

 

[Xue Sheng]

The students of famous masters tend to record their teacher's accomplishments. I'm sure the students of Niten-Ryu love to talk about the great feats of their founder Miyamoto Musashi. Jeet Kune Do students love to talk about how awesome Bruce Lee was. Gracie Jiujitsu practitioners know all about the accomplishment of the Gracies.

Old Chinese saying (and it really is an old Chinese saying)..... the nail the stands up gets hammered down.

And comparing the 1600 in Japan to Rio de Janeiro in the early 1900 or the 1960s in America and believing that is how it was is in 1600s Japan is not all close to any sort of historical truth it is just a plain silly comparison