It's not a "conceit."
You do have more right to survive than he.
He forfeited his rights by attacking you, and infringing upon yours.
Full stop.
Fundamental pillars of self-defense?
- Thread starter Brian King
- Start date
It's not a "conceit."
You do have more right to survive than he.
He forfeited his rights by attacking you, and infringing upon yours.
Full stop.
Yes.. also I am overzealous, I apologise. I value your opinion and that of others .. I am sorry for driving a point.. I am in need of an answer for my self and am sorry for asking here out of turn.. Jx
You're not "asking out of turn, " Jenna ; you're asking.
You may not like the answer, but it's the one you're gonna get.....
OP
OP
Ah, thank you Jenna, for both the kind words and for the second chance at the question. I do not think it is necessarily a thread derail. It would seem to me that addressing the moral responsibilities goes hand in hand with the legalities, and those go hand in hand with teaching hand to hand LOL sorry, couldn’t resist. This would be especially true when aspects of tool use and other possible lethal force options are being explored. It is healthiest if this exploration is explored both physically and mentally prior to ever having the unfortunate need to perhaps utilize such options. It is one thing to talk about eye gauging, choking someone to unconsciousness and/or death, best targeting of the body for knife or bullet penetration, and quite another thing, to honestly be willing and able to do such things.
We humans have been wrestling with this since the beginning. We as humans can be terribly effective at killing. Yet, even so we have not yet wiped ourselves out. To kill or even seriously wound another for most humans is not a natural act. Our soldiers have to be conditioned to do so and even then there is a high rate of failure to fire. Self-preservation is one of God’s gift to all creatures.
We often hold beliefs and facts as true and too seldom pull them out for reexamination to see if we still believe the same or if the facts still hold truth. It is a great thought exploration to pull these beliefs out now and then, dust them off and explore them once again.
My opinion is based on my own life’s experiences, those people, places, and circumstances that I have interacted with. My opinion is also based on research, reading, discussing/arguing, and thinking. My opinion is also subject to change, although it does so rarely.
So if I may paraphrase your question, to make sure I am replying correctly.
Your question seems to be. If all life is equally important and sacred, what gives us the right to injure or take a life in defense of our own? Isn’t it conceit then that allows us to assign more importance to our own life than to the other ‘human’ that is attacking us? Is that about right?
“conceit |kənˈsēt|
noun
1 excessive pride in oneself:”
Excessive is an interesting word in the definition of conceit.
Do animals have conceit when they defend themselves? Is it the mules excessive pride that causes it to cave in the mountain lions skull with kick? After all the lioness was just trying to feed itself and her young? Was it the lions ‘pride’ that caused her to attack the mule in the first place? The obvious answer to the immediate above, is no, as mountain lions unlike African lions do not live in prides but are more solitary animals. LOL...sorry.
I am reading human interaction, interpersonal conflict rather general than defense of the self. You do not seem to be asking by what right do we have of building shelter from the weather using lumber and other material, after all, do not trees have a right to live and our harvesting them to ease our hardships is not moral. You have not written that a person drowning in the ocean should just swallow the water and sink after all the body could keep generations of life alive at the bottom of the sea.
Interpersonal situations are different from the above. Violent interpersonal circumstances are rife with moral, philosophical, and physical questions and dangers. Even surviving violent interpersonal situations carry dangers. PTSD to name one. What makes them different is that we are self aware and it too easily in my opinion becomes personal when we are attacked by another human. No one takes a tornado personally. “I am going to kick the next tornado’s butt that tries to take my home, how could it even think to come into my neighborhood, doesn’t it know who I am?” said no one ever in response to a tornado. Yet, in interpersonal situations these type of thoughts are common and can often lead to dangers and unhealthy actions. Is it excessive pride/conceit that leads to these thoughts and actions. Maybe sometimes, but it doesn’t have to be.
Philosophically, what currently works for me Jenna, is that I see us, humans, as made in God’s image. He breathed life/spirit into us and that this creation should be sacrosanct. I am pro-life and at the same time pro-death penalty and do not see this as anyway hypocritical. I see human life as being so precious and valuable. For the death penalty- that for someone to ‘murder’ another is a crime so great that they then lose their own life for that crime. The murderer not only robs the victim of their precious life but they rob society as well of that precious life and all of its possibilities. I do see a difference between killing and murder, both can be deliberate but murder is also often premeditated and importantly with malice, only one is biblically moral, and here in the U.S. one is legal while the other is not. If attacked, I do not take pleasure in the work (although I do acknowledge the extreme pleasure of surviving) but I do not shirk from it either. It just is. It is like putting on a rain coat if it is raining. If it is really dumping the rain I might put on a rain coat and rain pants. It is not personal against the rain. If attacked, I will do whatever work is needed and that is determined by the attacking party. If they curse me I do not have to do much, if they throw a rock, I move so that it misses, I don’t necessarily pick up a rock and throw it back, mostly cause my skill at rock throwing has deteriorated as I age LOL. The attackers advantage is that they get to chose the when, who, how, and the how much. The defenders advantage besides legally and morally (no small things I think you would agree) is that the defender does not have to chose the when, who, or how much but can focus on the how. This clarity is a big advantage.
I see all things happening for a reason even if I do not know at the time (or ever) the reason. If someone attacks me with intent to do evil, it is for a reason. Why did our paths cross? If I see someone choking at a restaurant and I manage to dislodge the choking item, was I evil for doing so? If someone is sick and the doctor cures the illness, is the doctor evil? A person attacking another with malice and premeditation intending to do serious harm is in my opinion (and often in theirs as well) ‘sick’. Evil is real and it is a sickness and it is contagious. It might be that the person made the choice to attack knowing that a cure is on the way or perhaps they were guided? That cure might be the hospitalization and jail time that they need or it might be the morgue at the extreme, it could as easily be a hard look that reforms their current choices or perhaps me taking a beating. It is not that one life is more important than another, it is that one is ill and the other is the cure. We all have free will and as attackers they are exercising theirs. The difference between me in that circumstance and someone else might be our levels of training, life's experiences, and ability to survive the attack or another way of saying it is our levels of inoculation against the attack and the attacks contagion. The higher the level of my preparedness the higher my ability to end the circumstance well for all involved. No one injured or harmed, or both attacking party and myself in the morgue, it is not necessarily a best or worst case, it just is. Our paths crossed for a reason, my job is to walk my path as long as God sees fit. This is my path, others are on their own paths.
Regards
Brian King
OP
OP
Heard this story once at a Systema seminar years ago. A Russian fellow left his apartment and while walking down the street was approached by a group of toughs. Belligerently they asked "Are you Ivan?" "No, I am not Ivan" he replied. They demanded once again "Are you Ivan?" He again replied, "No, I am not Ivan." They then commenced to beating him. Punching and kicking him while cursing Ivan. After they left, the Russian fellow picked himself up off the ground, and thought to himself. "Wow, lucky I am not Ivan!"
Regards
Brian King
OP
OP
She successfully defended herself, umm, this IS self defense. She might have been able to do things differently but with out being there or even hearing the story who can say. "Self Defense" doesn't mean you cannot or will not be injured, robbed, or assaulted. It might give the tools and perspective to better prevent those things from occurring or if occurring to survive the encounter. She sounds like a very lucky lady, favorable outcomes should not by themselves lead training thought. I wonder if she is seeking training now or is convinced that she can 'wrestle' knife from throat anytime. Is she looking around her house more, approaching her car or however her assailant was able to get behind her differently. Has she done some landscaping so evil cannot lurk in the greenery? If so, this is also self defense it would seem to me,
This American Ninja Warrior show - is this like that show in Japan, big huge obstacle course that contestants compete on. Fantastic functional conditioning if it is that show. Good luck to your daughter to get on the show. Are you doing any training with her to help get her ready? There are local Parkour schools - have you looked into those at all for her?
Regards
Brian King
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Brian, I think younhave missed the point. Perhaps you're missing the point on purpose to make one of your own. Who knows, but it seems that way to me.
You reap what you sow. If someone attacks someone then they accept responsibility for what happens to themselves. When someone attacks you and you do not defend yourself then you do not control the level of violence. If you do successfully defend yourself then you control the level of violence because you can stop using violence as soon as the threat is eliminated.The attacker might not. You might maim or kill my attacker unnecessarily, that is a risk, which is why violence should always be avoided whenever possible or prudent. There are also risks involved with not trying to hurt your attacker. Being able to defend yourself and not go too far is part of being a responsible martial artist, it is not about who has more rights.
In the above scenario, the only choice that was made was his, to attack you. "Him or me" is not a choice. It is the hard-wired instinct of human survival. And, by the way....F' him.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Sort of. I would say it would be a conceit to believe I fundamentally have more right to survive all things being equal. So if both of us were drowning. I save me.
And I mostly have that conceit.
But morally we have basic human rights. If someone tries to take a life the other person can kill to stop them. This is not because one life is more important than the other. But because there is just a reasonable response to these things.
Murder becomes wrong but killing to prevent murder does not.
And I mostly have that conceit.
But morally we have basic human rights. If someone tries to take a life the other person can kill to stop them. This is not because one life is more important than the other. But because there is just a reasonable response to these things.
Murder becomes wrong but killing to prevent murder does not.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
Why not?
Let me ask this in another vein, since I have a wife who cannot work to support herself due to fibromyalgia. If I want to stay alive to care for her, and am willing to fight an assailant to further that, is that conceit on my part, or compassion, or love, or both? In such a case, is any harm I inflict on the assailant my responsibility, or his, since I only want to remain alive/capable to care for my wife?
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Study Women trained in self-defense less likely to be sexually assaulted... MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community
In the thread above, the article points to the effectiveness of a 12 hour, self defense program that seems to be proving effective.
12 hours (not weeks, as the thread title suggests) broken out over 3 days of 4 hours each. A grand totla of 2 hours is spent on physical skills. That's about 8% of the time, with 92% spent on all of the things. That makes way more sense to me. Hopefully, it helps explain my earlier comments, which i don't think I was making veyr clear.
In the thread above, the article points to the effectiveness of a 12 hour, self defense program that seems to be proving effective.
Earlier, I mentioned that it has become clear from the discussion that the physical skills are being disproportionately emphasized, at least based upon the descriptions and impressions I get from you all. This study is a perfect example of what I think is a very solid balance.
12 hours (not weeks, as the thread title suggests) broken out over 3 days of 4 hours each. A grand totla of 2 hours is spent on physical skills. That's about 8% of the time, with 92% spent on all of the things. That makes way more sense to me. Hopefully, it helps explain my earlier comments, which i don't think I was making veyr clear.
Last edited:
It is the “not go too far” I want to ask you RTKDCMB, not go too far to ensure what? If it is to ensure your safety or your survival then are you not operating on the principle that you have more rights because you are not considering what happen to your attacker?
Then if some one try to harm me that gift is being denied to me.. if I harm them in my defence I deny that gift to them. These two are equal. Show me where is God in that equation Brian.. all I can discern is ego.. what am I missing?
..and what of our hard wired lizard brain programming to have sex? This is not also an instinct along with survival??? to say we act out of primal instinct is not a defence surely??
Mostly like always? Or mostly like there is some event, circumstance or situation might cause you to not possess that conceit?
Murder = killing with intent
killing to prevent murder = killing with intent
Can you say why these seem the same and yet you have said one is wrong and one is not?
I would rather fight your assailant on your behalf so you would not have to make that decision at all because you have enough already to worry over and so I cannot disagree with you because I am a compassionate person and I care.. yet why must I not care or have concern for the wife or children of your –or my- attacker? Some where in this situation they begin to merit less worth than yours or mine when we are the attacked, why is that? We may have otherwise cared about them, why do we not care because they are the wife or child of our attacker and we have permanently maimed or even killed him that we can survive? why do we not care?
OP
OP
Thanks Jenna,
They are not equal. What you may be missing is that one has malice and one has mercy. My understanding and preference is that we are called to be merciful not sacrificial.
Regards
Brian King
oftheherd1
Senior Master
You may have a point about intentionally killing to prevent murder, but wouldn't it depend on the circumstances?
What about the instances when a person responds instinctively, to the sudden, unexpected assault? The technique, or its consequences, may cause a death that could not have been anticipated due to the instinctive unthinking reaction. Is there an equality there?
How about a policeman who shoots someone about to stab a defenseless child, in order to stop the knife attack in motion?
How about the soldier who kills an enemy about to stab his combat buddy with a bayonet?
You are kind. Thank you.
In answer to the above, and actually I think, to a lot of your questions. I don't think it is correct to say the wife of an assailant merits less concern, at least in the way I think you mean it. Is that true for you? Not by you comments in wanting to keep me from making a decision I may wish not to have to make. So why ascribe to any of the rest here, any more lack of compassion?
If an assailant attacks me in a way that I perceive to threaten my life, wouldn't you say the assailant is the one with conceit? The assailant is the one who has decided he can accomplish his goals over my resistance. If he is wrong, by the time he finds it out, he may be dead. Is that not his conceit that harms his wife and children by his being taken from their lives. And that whether he is just a general bad guy who likes to hurt others, or is desperate to provide food or medicine to his family. Either way the bad choice is his, and if there is any conceit, that is his also. And I may not know at the time of the attack that he even has a wife and children. How can I factor that in to my response?
Not going too far as in not continuing to beat my attacker after the threat is eliminated. Not stomping on the head of an already unconscious attacker would be an example. You have the right to defend yourself, no one has the right to attack you. The response must always be proportional to the threat, that way you are considering what will happen to your attacker.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
I'd be interested in hearing a scenario where stomping on someone's head would be self defense. I can't think of one. But many people learn that technique in self defense class.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Jenna
Just to add something, actually restate it because it has already been said.
The attackers intent is to kill the victims intent is to survive. Now the intent to survive may be a primal instinct but the attacker intent to kill likely is not, that was a choice.
Now one can choose not to survive, not what I would recommend, but they can choose that and thereby disrupting that "primal instinct".... but to what end with the overall picture of humanity.....
Just to add something, actually restate it because it has already been said.
The attackers intent is to kill the victims intent is to survive. Now the intent to survive may be a primal instinct but the attacker intent to kill likely is not, that was a choice.
Now one can choose not to survive, not what I would recommend, but they can choose that and thereby disrupting that "primal instinct".... but to what end with the overall picture of humanity.....
When that person has a knife or club, and there's at least one other assailant-stomping on their head is neutralizing a lethal threat. Discussions afterward are for lawyers to have with the defender.....of course, the defender has to be alive to have that discussion.
(and, hey @Steve -it should be obvious why I can think of any number of scenarios where stomping on someone's head is self defense. Be glad that you couldn't.)
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Well, I hear what you're saying, elder999. But i'm not sure I understand. If bad guy #1 is helpless, but he has a buddy, it's okay to kill him. I'll have to mull that over for a while. Doesn't compute right now.
