Sport vs. Street

[Gerry Seymour]

"trained killers" such as myself in my camou pants and combat boots

...

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Self defence is fitting whatever terms you seem to want to make it. Based on your own opinion.

Which makes any argument of self defence void pretty much. Because it is determined by your own impression of what self defence is. It would be like asking at this point what fight was prettier. You just decide.

And then to suggest it is easy just to go with your impression of what is self defence is probably not going to happen.

You are even determining whether a person could have removed themselves from a fight without knowing anything about that fight.

There is a legal determination of self defence and there is a legal determination of amicable contest. Which you throw out the window for your determination of both.

Now the legal term is manufactured. Someone just came up with the idea. Then you manufactured,came up with a new idea, a different version of self defence that applies to you.

And are having issues with other people being argumentitive?

Self-defense is a concept. Unless we use the legal term (then we have to decide which law), it's going to have fuzzy edges. I'm more than willing to admit that there are points where it's tough to define the difference between self-defense and something else. I can't make it not be that way. I try to put my own views out there as plainly as I can, so folks can understand where I'm coming from. If they have a different view of it, that's fine. It doesn't make it impossible to discuss. It just means the people discussing it have to agree on some points (choose a common definition, etc.) for it to become a meaningful discussion.

The legal definition is based upon the concept. If you want to use the legal definition, that's fine. Of course, you'll have to decide which legal definition you wish to use, because the legal concept is fairly universal, but the language and limits aren't.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's your personal rules of conduct and how you personally define, SD. Obviously, not those guys in the 1st fight of that video.

Not so obviously. They don't appear to be making rational decisions in the video. They might be, but it doesn't appear that way. People whose emotions take over often make decisions they, themselves, cannot defend.

 

[drop bear]

Self-defense is a concept. Unless we use the legal term (then we have to decide which law), it's going to have fuzzy edges. I'm more than willing to admit that there are points where it's tough to define the difference between self-defense and something else. I can't make it not be that way. I try to put my own views out there as plainly as I can, so folks can understand where I'm coming from. If they have a different view of it, that's fine. It doesn't make it impossible to discuss. It just means the people discussing it have to agree on some points (choose a common definition, etc.) for it to become a meaningful discussion.

The legal definition is based upon the concept. If you want to use the legal definition, that's fine. Of course, you'll have to decide which legal definition you wish to use, because the legal concept is fairly universal, but the language and limits aren't.

So all the way back at the start of this was there are a whole bunch of fights where people don't die

Why bother making the distinction in the first place?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So all the way back at the start of this was there are a whole bunch of fights where people don't die

Why bother making the distinction in the first place?

I don't know why others make the distinction. To me, it's part ethics, part strategy. The strategy part is understanding the difference between a fight (stay in until you win or lose) and defense (if you have a chance to escape, generally, you should take it). The ethics part is more personal, but it ties to the idea of avoiding unnecessary risk, too (a principle of self-protection). If someone offers violence, it's generally better to decline than to engage, if that's an option. So, if someone loses their mind in anger (the "emotional hijacking" I referenced in another thread) and wants me to go out back with them, I won't go. I simply won't agree to the fight. Of course, we could probably come up with a circumstance where agreeing to the fight might be acceptable, but it wouldn't normally be so.

If we don't make a distinction between what is self-defense and what isn't, we put all fighting on the same moral plane. I think most people would agree that there's nothing wrong with fighting to defend oneself from an attack, and that any injuries you receive while doing so are the "fault" of the attacker. I think most people would also agree that agreeing to fight someone who just wants to hurt you because they are mad at you is probably a bad idea, and that any injuries you sustain in that situation are at least partly your own responsibility.

 

[Transk53]

So, I'll ask you the same thing I asked Paul for: please define your difference between "technique" and "skill".

One of the same. Well skills are just natural movements. IE David Beckham and that right foot. He had to hone the technique, but the skill was already there.

 

[Martial_Kumite]

What am I saying, do you know?

Umm... I am confused on what you are asking?

 

[Transk53]

Then did you want to tell us what this "TKD Kick" is then?

Er no, but the kick no doubt would be ballet quality.

 

[CB Jones]

Skill is created thru repetition and hard work.

Natural ability is natural but extremely rare.

Skill is acquired.

 

[Transk53]

Skill is created thru repetition and hard work.

Natural ability is natural but extremely rare.

Skill is acquired.

No its not. Skils can be honed. You have them or you don't. Its what makes us non robotic

 

[CB Jones]

No its not. Skils can be honed. You have them or you don't. Its what makes us non robotic

Skills can be honed, after those skills are learned.

Beckham had to learn how to kick a soccer ball he was not born with that knowledge.

His natural ability might of made it easier to learn but it still had to be learned.

Technique is the method in which you do something

Skill is how well you do that technique

Natural abilities enhance the skills that we have

 

[Transk53]

Skills can be honed, after those skills are learned.

Beckham had to learn how to kick a soccer ball he was not born with that knowledge.

His natural ability might of made it easier to learn but it still had to be learned.

Technique is the method in which you do something

Skill is how well you do that technique

Natural abilities enhance the skills that we have

CB that is a very good answer. Sorry though, I don't subscribe to that, yeah.

Anyway, natural ability doesn't have to be learnt. Just ever so contradicting of the message

 

[Martial_Kumite]

Anyway, natural ability doesn't have to be learnt. Just ever so contradicting of the message

Wouldn't it be well to say that a natural skill needed to be "awakened"? For instance, If some one has a natural ability to read/play music, they first have to be exposed to music/playing music. So it might be less that you need to "learn" a natural ability, and more that you have to realise it exists.

 

[CB Jones]

Sorry though, I don't subscribe to that, yeah

If you are talking about reality...I would agree

 

[Transk53]

Wouldn't it be well to say that a natural skill needed to be "awakened"? For instance, If some one has a natural ability to read/play music, they first have to be exposed to music/playing music. So it might be less that you need to "learn" a natural ability, and more that you have to realise it exists.

Yes. That makes a lot of sense.

 

[Transk53]

If you are talking about reality...I would agree

Yeah sure. Nice attempt though

 

[FriedRice]

Self-defense is a concept. Unless we use the legal term (then we have to decide which law), it's going to have fuzzy edges. I'm more than willing to admit that there are points where it's tough to define the difference between self-defense and something else. I can't make it not be that way. I try to put my own views out there as plainly as I can, so folks can understand where I'm coming from. If they have a different view of it, that's fine. It doesn't make it impossible to discuss. It just means the people discussing it have to agree on some points (choose a common definition, etc.) for it to become a meaningful discussion.

The legal definition is based upon the concept. If you want to use the legal definition, that's fine. Of course, you'll have to decide which legal definition you wish to use, because the legal concept is fairly universal, but the language and limits aren't.

I'm fine with this. It's just that you kept quoting my post calling something SD, and saying "that's not self defense", which implies that you're the Final Authority.

 

[FriedRice]

Not so obviously. They don't appear to be making rational decisions in the video. They might be, but it doesn't appear that way. People whose emotions take over often make decisions they, themselves, cannot defend.

They're defending themselves from attacks. What's considered rational to someone who's not used to violence is usually different than those who, ie. lives in the ghetto and must use violence often to survive daily life. The last thing that someone wants to be in the ghetto, is the B, that runs away all the time.

 

[FriedRice]

Er no, but the kick no doubt would be ballet quality.

It's ok, you're a noob in the realm of MA. We all had to start somewhere.

 

[FriedRice]

Umm... I am confused on what you are asking?

See you didn't know. I was referring to his calling certain techniques, "TKD kicks". This is like saying, "I train UFC". That is all.