Fundamental pillars of self-defense?

[elder999]

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

For the purpose of clarity, I have to say that I teach no "killing" techniques. At least, I don't call them that.

I call them decisive....in fact, I'll often use the same term for breaking someone's arm, versus simply immobilizing it. On the other hand, a choke, while pretty "decisive" doesn't exactly require killing or permanent damage to be effective-though you can decide to do exactly those things.

That said, 35 years ago, I made a variety of choices: I chose to go to a party in Brooklyn. I chose to carry a pen with me, because carrying a gun or knife wasn't a viable or legal choice. I chose to stay out later than I planned. I chose to not go have breakfast with those gals, and try to get home....'

Things that weren't a "choice" that night?

Running when those guys came onto the platform.
Not giving them my wallet and watch.
Letting that kid stab me anyway, for some sort of gang ritual.

I certainly didn't get up that morning thinking, "Ya know, I want to stab a 17 year old boy to death tonight," but I'll tell you one thing, I certainly wasn't about to choose to allow one to kill me, either.

That's not a "choice" at all, and for me-at age 20, and that stage in my training, there was no other choice-there really could still be no other choice in tactics: there were three of them, and one of them was just there to kill somebody-in this unfortunate case, me. Three against one-Chuck Norris fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding-is a lethal threat, and justifies a lethal response. If you think you're going to feel bad about it, well, better to feel bad about it afterward than not feel anything at all, because you're dead. For myself, I've never felt bad about it-not even that morning: I was wolfing down pizza in the police station not two hours afterward.

 

[elder999]

T
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."

Was the woman in the OP a martial arts student? She certainly was no student of mine, in any case....

...most of my students would have shot the guy.

"RFLMAO" smiley notwithstanding, that's perfectly serious. They'd likely have shot him: I would.

 

[Hanzou]

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

Where did I say that? I said that the students of each respective style reveres their founder in some form or another, and tell many stories about their interesting to amazing exploits.

 

[Hanzou]

Was the woman in the OP a martial arts student? She certainly was no student of mine, in any case....

The point was, that if she was a martial arts student (depending on the style of course), she wouldn't have just laid there and taken that beating.

 

[elder999]

Where did I say that? I said that the students of each respective style reveres their founder in some form or another, and tell many stories about their interesting to amazing exploits.

In koryu, it's most often only to each other....pretty sure that you won't find any dueling stories about any of the masters of the Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū, 天真正伝香取神道流, including the founder, .just sayin'

 

[Xue Sheng]

Where did I say that? I said that the students of each respective style reveres their founder in some form or another, and tell many stories about their interesting to amazing exploits.

I seriously doubt I am the only one that read your post ,where you said,

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.

That thought by the use to Gracie, Brice Lee and Minamoto Mushashi you implying that since the students of the Gracies and Bruce Lee talked about it then the students of Mushashi did as well.

So to answer your question, You said it right there in the above post that I quoted from you.

 

[elder999]

Where did I say that? I said that the students of each respective style reveres their founder in some form or another, and tell many stories about their interesting to amazing exploits.

In koryu, it's most often only to each other....pretty sure that you won't find any dueling stories about any of the masters of the Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū, 天真正伝香取神道流, including the founder, .just sayin'

Or, just as likely, the tales of "exploits" would include instruction or duels with kami, tengu or the spirits of warriors long past.....

 

[Hanzou]

I seriously doubt I am the only one that read your post ,where you said,



That thought by the use to Gracie, Brice Lee and Minamoto Mushashi you implying that since the students of the Gracies and Bruce Lee talked about it then the students of Mushashi did as well.

So to answer your question, You said it right there in the above post that I quoted from you.

Uh where am I comparing 17th century Japan to 20th century Brazil and America? I'm saying that martial arts students discuss the exploits of the founders of their style. That's it.

BTW, I'm curious what that (and whatever Elder is going on about) has to do with the topic of this discussion?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Uh where am I comparing 17th century Japan to 20th century Brazil and America? I'm saying that martial arts students discuss the exploits of the founders of their style. That's it.

Are you serious? I'm not making this up, you made the statement about students of Mushashi and then added in the same exact statement the Gracies and Bruce Lee and you don't think that is a comparison......apparently denial is not only a river in egypt

BTW, I'm curious what that (and whatever Elder is going on about) has to do with the topic of this discussion?

I only responded to what you said, so you tell me. Don't like the way the post is going, then don't make silly statements comparing 17th century Japan to 20th century South American and America.to try and support your argument

 

[Hanzou]

Are you serious? I'm not making this up, you made the statement about students of Mushashi and then added in the same exact statement the Gracies and Bruce Lee and you don't think that is a comparison......apparently denial is not only a river in egypt

I only responded to what you said, so you tell me. Don't like the way the post is going, then don't make silly statements comparing 17th century Japan to 20th century South American and America.to try and support your argument

I was comparing the students of the martial arts founded by Musashi, Lee, and the Gracies, not the eras in which those founders lived.

There are still people who practice Niten Ichi-Ryu you know.

 

[Jenna]

I'll tell you one thing, I certainly wasn't about to choose to allow one to kill me, either.

Your tone suggests an adamance over this, and your adamance or vehemence points to some thing else within you. Nevertheless this is our conceit. We all have it. Unless we have a mind of Gandhi or those few others. Our conceit is that we have more right to survive than our attacker.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I was comparing the students of the martial arts founded by Musashi, Lee, and the Gracies, not the eras in which those founders lived.

There are still people who practice Niten Ichi-Ryu you know.

Yes I am aware of that, are you aware of how what you post is interpreted?

 

[elder999]

BTW, I'm curious what that (and whatever Elder is going on about) has to do with the topic of this discussion?

You disparaged the lack of documented "exploits" of what you perceived to be a "non-fighting" martial artist whom I quoted.

The point of my quote being that "martial arts" can consist of more than techniques for self-defense (or, in some cases , offense) and extend to those areas that would certainly be "not fighting."

Said disparagement on your part being based on a completely faulty and ignorant premise was pretty much the rest of what I was "going on about."

Our conceit is that we have more right to survive than our attacker.

It's not a conceit: in attacking, they relinquish any "right" to survival, and the rights of those they are attacking supersede theirs.

Of course, the will and ability of the attacked to exercise that right is the question....

"I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence,” -Gandhi, Doctrine of the Sword

""If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."His Holiness, Tenzin Gyatso, 14th and likely last, Dalai Lama, some lecture in Washington, give me a minute..

EDIT: The lecture was in Oregon, in May of 2001.

The point both men were making had more to do with the nature of the world, though, and how it is red in tooth and claw-a brutal place, where violence and brutality may not be "the" answer, but are sometimes "the only answer".

I'd add that the will and ability to "choose" to do violence to those who would do violence to us is a fundamental pillar of self defense.

 

[elder999]

Lastly, @Jenna , I'd point to this post, and point out that my "adamance" is hard earned, and has its basis in years of all manner of experience, and on these shores.

If someone breaks into my house, and I'm home-I'm not going to ask what they want, or lay still and hope they get it and go away-I am going to call the police, and then I'm probably going to shoot them. I'll neutralize a lethal threat-maybe they'll die, maybe they won't: I'm a good shot, and center of mass is relatively easy with a shotgun, but I'm going to shoot them center of mass. Maybe they'll die, maybe they won't......in the past, I'd warn them-these days, if they make it over the fence, past the dogs, and past the alarms-I'm going to assume they've come to take our most precious possessions-our lives- and I'm going to shoot them.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Our conceit is that we have more right to survive than our attacker.

But we do have more right to survive than our attacker. No one has the right to attack someone therefore we have the right to defend ourselves..

 

[Buka]

We do have more right to survive than an attacker, than any attacker. I have never heard it called a conceit before. Interesting interpretation, maybe.

I look at it as a choice. Everybody has to be doing something when they die. If they wish to be attacking - that was their choice. Shouldn't have chosen a predator. It pisses us off.

 

[Jenna]

If in defending your self you may inflict harm or damage upon your attacker in which case both you and he have damaged the other.

Why do we believe we have more right to inflict harm and injury on another than they do on us.

 

[elder999]

If in defending your self you may inflict harm or damage upon your attacker in which case both you and he have damaged the other.

Other than any potential harm that comes from my attacker, how am I "damaged" in inflicting harm or damage?

I'd posit that-for myself-if I inflict harm or damage and remain free of injury, I am undamaged.

Why do we believe we have more right to inflict harm and injury on another than they do on us.

No one is saying that. It's quite simple, though: the need for self-preservation overrides any considerations of not doing harm, and, by attacking us, the attacker relinquishes all such rights to not be harmed or injured.

I don't believe that; I know it for a fact.

 

[elder999]

Put another, simpler way: in attacking-in attempting to inflict harm or injury-one relinquishes all (presumptive) right not to be harmed or injured by others. In being attacked, one's right for self preservation and protection supersedes all (presumptive) constraints against harming or injuring our attacker.

 

[Jenna]

I will put this in first person for fear it sound like I am directing it any where in particular..

I am attacked and I fight back, and either by intention or by accident I maim or kill my attacker.. By his action he has forced me to make a choice: him or me. In this case or any like it, I *always* choose me. This would be my conceit to have believed and acted upon the notion that I have more right to survive than he.