Martial arts as defense on the streets

[Gerry Seymour]

So show me this discussion that worked.

You keep claiming it is me. Fine. Show this self defense conversation that didn't bog down on terms. There are plenty of conversations that I am not part of.

Let's start with the simple observation that you're the only person really raising a stink about the term. It gets used frequently (several times in the last few days, in fact - I've been watching) in discussions, and nobody seemed to have any problem with the usage, or with comprehension of the message. Heck, you even let it slide in a couple of cases.

I'm not here to do your homework for you. I'm pretty certain you don't really believe some of the crap you've said here. You like to throw names sideways at me - you decided some time ago apparently that I'm a pet project and you need to change something about me. Not sure why, and don't care. But you raise this level of argument with me from time to time, blowing things out of proportion. Your confirmation bias gets much worse at these times, and your arguments get silly.

I'm going to drop this one now. It's been entertaining.

 

[jobo]

I don't know that the terms is a legal term, but I have been told (by folks who ought to know) that the concept exists in more or less the way I've been trying to describe it. That's about as far as my knowledge on the topic goes.

It exists in ring fights, as there is an agreed rule set to which both have agreed, and a pass from the legal restraints, its a lot less certain what if anything has been agreed in a fight on a pub carpark, if someone pulls out a bottle, has that been agreed? if one thinks its a fist fight and you kick him in the head has he signed on for that, whe, can somebody change their mind and require you to stop. to say its consensual, with out specify what has been consented to is nonsence

 

[drop bear]

Let's start with the simple observation that you're the only person really raising a stink about the term. It gets used frequently (several times in the last few days, in fact - I've been watching) in discussions, and nobody seemed to have any problem with the usage, or with comprehension of the message. Heck, you even let it slide in a couple of cases.

I'm not here to do your homework for you. I'm pretty certain you don't really believe some of the crap you've said here. You like to throw names sideways at me - you decided some time ago apparently that I'm a pet project and you need to change something about me. Not sure why, and don't care. But you raise this level of argument with me from time to time, blowing things out of proportion. Your confirmation bias gets much worse at these times, and your arguments get silly.

I'm going to drop this one now. It's been entertaining.

If you are suggesting that self defence isn't a weasel word because 9 out of 10 martial artists agree.

I don't think you understand what the term really means.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It exists in ring fights, as there is an agreed rule set to which both have agreed, and a pass from the legal restraints, its a lot less certain what if anything has been agreed in a fight on a pub carpark, if someone pulls out a bottle, has that been agreed? if one thinks its a fist fight and you kick him in the head has he signed on for that, whe, can somebody change their mind and require you to stop. to say its consensual, with out specify what has been consented to is nonsence

You'd have to talk to someone more versed in law to find out the particulars. I only know the concept exists.

 

[drop bear]

It exists in ring fights, as there is an agreed rule set to which both have agreed, and a pass from the legal restraints, its a lot less certain what if anything has been agreed in a fight on a pub carpark, if someone pulls out a bottle, has that been agreed? if one thinks its a fist fight and you kick him in the head has he signed on for that, whe, can somebody change their mind and require you to stop. to say its consensual, with out specify what has been consented to is nonsence

When we do a statement to the cops we always have to put in there we did not give permission to be assaulted.

 

[Dirty Dog]

When we do a statement to the cops we always have to put in there we did not give permission to be assaulted.

I don't think that's at all uncommon. I think most places have some sort of law allowing mutual combat. If they didn't, sparring would be illegal.

 

[Invisibleflash]

I have recently read that there are those who believe martial arts are ineffective in a street fight, myself, I do not believe this to be the case, yes it depends on the individual, but every little helps I say, anyhow, found this interesting video on line, and thought I would share it with you, my particular favourite is the Muay Thai cop.


Martial arts in street fight - Martial arts - Self defense - fitness in Erbil Iraq | Facebook

Better to have tools than not. But if you get caught up in form and BS, then too much learning may be a problem. I'm old, so I prefer weapons with the hands as backup.

I saw a video where a pimp was going after some do-gooder that didn't like the pimp slapping around a girl. The pimp got taken out with one chop to the neck. Was a pleasure to watch.

Only thing better would be to see some guy pull out a gun and dispatch a group of knife wielding jihadist's in the UK.

...I'd pay $$ to see that.

Of course, the pimp video was old. The pimp may have had a gun nowadays.

They had a vid from UK that showed a do-gooder being stabbed to death on the subway. Do-gooder kept harassing the person for doing wrong. The bad boy had enough and stabbed the do-gooder dozens of times.

Beside weapons and hands, I try to avoid trouble. That saves me most of the time.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

Usually, I just look at a dictionary, when I need to understand what a term means. I really have no use for personal definitions.

As for Martial Arts on the streets, it worked for me Kwon Bup that is. As a matter of fact, the Pinan fighting forms, that I learned were very useful against more than one or two attackers.

I think that most of the people, that say these things, have never actually used it in the streets or they attempted to use a sport based art.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Usually, I just look at a dictionary, when I need to understand what a term means. I really have no use for personal definitions.

As for Martial Arts on the streets, it worked for me Kwon Bup that is. As a matter of fact, the Pinan fighting forms, that I learned were very useful against more than one or two attackers.

I think that most of the people, that say these things, have never actually used it in the streets or they attempted to use a sport based art.

The problem is that dictionaries report what definitions are in common usage, rather than dictating them. And personal definitions often have more nuance than the dictionary version, which makes understanding what someone else means by a term important in some situations.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

The problem is that dictionaries report what definitions are in common usage, rather than dictating them. And personal definitions often have more nuance than the dictionary version, which makes understanding what someone else means by a term important in some situations.

I understand some of the reasoning, but disagree with its premise, as there is an entire profession that studies these words and provides a universal definition. And, changing the definition of a word, in order to support an argument, pretty much nullifies the argument.

I leave it to the pro's, it is their job.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

I will give a simple example

Scientific Theory and Hypotheses, I won't go into detail on their definitions as I assume, a majority of people on here understand their meaning.

If we are to allow the religious definition concerning a Theory, then they would be justified in removing science from school. And, if we were to cater to that definition that most of them hold, then that would be detrimental to just about ALL modern conveniences.

Are we to accept this definition, that clearly suits their agenda, or should we go with the actual definition?

 

[drop bear]

Usually, I just look at a dictionary, when I need to understand what a term means. I really have no use for personal definitions.

As for Martial Arts on the streets, it worked for me Kwon Bup that is. As a matter of fact, the Pinan fighting forms, that I learned were very useful against more than one or two attackers.

I think that most of the people, that say these things, have never actually used it in the streets or they attempted to use a sport based art.

Well the trick is to stay away from these vague umbrella concepts. And make a critique on more specific concepts.

So martial arts works in self defense because videos.

And we could go something like. What I would avoid in fight no 3 is he jumped off top for a submission or fight number 4 he unnecessarily kicked the guy leaving himself open for legal repercussions.

As opposed to self defence makes you 20% more self defensier.

 

[drop bear]

I will give a simple example

Scientific Theory and Hypotheses, I won't go into detail on their definitions as I assume, a majority of people on here understand their meaning.

If we are to allow the religious definition concerning a Theory, then they would be justified in removing science from school. And, if we were to cater to that definition that most of them hold, then that would be detrimental to just about ALL modern conveniences.

Are we to accept this definition, that clearly suits their agenda, or should we go with the actual definition?

For martial arts we should go with a scientific approach and so use scientific definitions when we can.

So facts for example have evidence.

The scientific method song.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I understand some of the reasoning, but disagree with its premise, as there is an entire profession that studies these words and provides a universal definition. And, changing the definition of a word, in order to support an argument, pretty much nullifies the argument.

I leave it to the pro's, it is their job.

I'm not talking about someone changing the definition to support an argument. Usage changes over time, and exact definitions are nearly always an approximation of the conceptual use of language. The reason it takes professionals to do this is that they have to try to cover as much ground as possible with as few definitions as possible. The term "self-defense" is a prime example. I know exactly what I mean by it, and you probably know exactly what you mean by it. But communicating to each other the nuances of difference in what we mean in our heads is difficult. A quick definition helps a lot, but the apparently hard borders of that definition rarely match the concept's less-stark edges.

Technical terms are usually more limited, so easier to define. "Force" has a clear (so far as I know, anyway) definition in physics, but the way the word is used in common English is much more nuanced.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I will give a simple example

Scientific Theory and Hypotheses, I won't go into detail on their definitions as I assume, a majority of people on here understand their meaning.

If we are to allow the religious definition concerning a Theory, then they would be justified in removing science from school. And, if we were to cater to that definition that most of them hold, then that would be detrimental to just about ALL modern conveniences.

Are we to accept this definition, that clearly suits their agenda, or should we go with the actual definition?

That's an example of manipulating the argument by switching definitions. That's a logical fallacy (I've forgotten the name for it). The common-language use of "theory" (e.g., "I have a theory about why that happens") doesn't match the scientific usage.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well the trick is to stay away from these vague umbrella concepts. And make a critique on more specific concepts.

So martial arts works in self defense because videos.

And we could go something like. What I would avoid in fight no 3 is he jumped off top for a submission or fight number 4 he unnecessarily kicked the guy leaving himself open for legal repercussions.

As opposed to self defence makes you 20% more self defensier.

Keep straw manning that. You rant and rave about that term, but never suggest a better term for discussing the things people (pretty much everyone I've talked to about those concepts) use the term for.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

For martial arts we should go with a scientific approach and so use scientific definitions when we can.

So facts for example have evidence.

The scientific method song.

Except it's not really fully scientific, even in MMA. Folks use training methods they believe work, and some of those are really not supported by science (some are shown to have really little or no effect in scientific studies). And you REALLY spend too much time trying to draw a distinction between competition and non-competition training...all while making a really good point that there's not that much difference between most of the skills needed in the two contexts.

 

[drop bear]

Keep straw manning that. You rant and rave about that term, but never suggest a better term for discussing the things people (pretty much everyone I've talked to about those concepts) use the term for.

I just did in that post.

 

[drop bear]

Except it's not really fully scientific, even in MMA. Folks use training methods they believe work, and some of those are really not supported by science (some are shown to have really little or no effect in scientific studies). And you REALLY spend too much time trying to draw a distinction between competition and non-competition training...all while making a really good point that there's not that much difference between most of the skills needed in the two contexts.

Not really. If you listen to the song. That is the basic process.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

I will, myself continue to use the definition provided by linguistic professional s. As, stated before, these people are professionals with years of study and decades of experience.