The rule sets of combat

[jobo]

Ya, I can't argue against that. I certainly don't think squaring off is the best solution in most cases, and despite what words some others in this thread might be trying to put in my mouth, I'm actually a big fan of finger jabs to the eyes. I am a WC guy after all.

We have approached what is much the same issue from different perspectives and come to a different conclusion. my starting point is when I was doing tma( lau gar kung fu) in my physical peak, it was extremely effective rhe times I used it fights. ergo if my current art( karate) is not equally so, its because I'm not a 28 yo athlete any more so the logic solution is obviously to trust the art and work on my fitness. or the reverse, if I can't go someway towards matching the the physical abilities of my opponent my karate is useless, beyond catching them b surprise and poking them in the eye or some such. my instructor oft asks why I don't attend more than one class a week, the answer is it disrupts my fitness routine, t class I do counts as a rest day,I'm happy with my " mastery" of basic techniques, what I need is more umph when doing them

 

[Buka]

Is that baseball you are playing?

No. But it is on a field next to the baseball field. There are so many athletic fields here it blows the mind. They're bunched together, with soccer fields, baseball fields and just plain open fields, sometimes a half dozen of them that you wouldn't even know were there if you were driving by. You might see one and go down to it.....and find six more in lower fields right next to them.

It's always amazed me. I'm guessing that they're used, but I don't know, I'm never there in the late afternoon or early evening hours.

 

[hoshin1600]

This has entered Monty Python territory.

I actually covered the Monty python territory in the original post when I referenced being attacked by an assailant with a banana. But it seemed to be missed by most

 

[jobo]

I actually covered the Monty python territory in the original post when I referenced being attacked by an assailant with a banana. But it seemed to be missed by most

though it was a typo and youmeant to say bandana

 

[hoshin1600]

Wouldn't universal and interchangeable have the same meaning in this context?

yes. I was agreeing with him. But only that SOME rules will span across but not all.

 

[Bruce7]

though it was a typo and youmeant to say bandana

banana was funnier.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

I use to believe in rules, chair to the face solved that issue.

Although, I do believe in legalities. Check your state laws or at least Supreme Court rulings.

Rules sets are a great idea but, they are not in the realm of reality, when it comes to life. Legal issues, yes..rulesets, not so much.

 

[hoshin1600]

I use to believe in rules, chair to the face solved that issue.

Although, I do believe in legalities. Check your state laws or at least Supreme Court rulings.

Rules sets are a great idea but, they are not in the realm of reality, when it comes to life. Legal issues, yes..rulesets, not so much.

my definition of a rule set is much wider then yours.
rule sets to me includes things like gravity and human biology. our biological make up conditions our behavior. most people dont think to much about why they behave the way they do but scientists do. our behavior is not as "free" as we think. those are rule sets.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

my definition of a rule set is much wider then yours.
rule sets to me includes things like gravity and human biology. our biological make up conditions our behavior. most people dont think to much about why they behave the way they do but scientists do. our behavior is not as "free" as we think. those are rule sets.

I understand your definitions, in the area of our thinking and I am aware of the papers, that you have drawn this information from. It is true that we might not be as "free" in our behavior as we think. But, once made aware of these things, it is not a hard task to change those behaviors.

In combat and preparing for combat, this is great for you. But, in the actual combat when facing your opponent, (non sport) you do not know your opponents background. At least, the chance of not knowing him/her is highly likely. And, even though it is great to "get to know thyself", it will not be very helpful for you, in knowing your opponent. Simply because no two people, will ever experience life the same way. Although our 'biological make up conditions our behaviour' our experiences always determine our biological makeup, as do our choices.

If you know the person, yes you have a better understanding of their 'rulesets' but, if you do not know your opponents, you will be very hardpressed, even to understand their rulesets.

And, the law, really doesn't take any of that into consideration, when it comes to being in a situation where you must defend life and limb. It cares only if you had justification.

An interesting concept though.

 

[hoshin1600]

I understand your definitions, in the area of our thinking and I am aware of the papers, that you have drawn this information from. It is true that we might not be as "free" in our behavior as we think. But, once made aware of these things, it is not a hard task to change those behaviors.

In combat and preparing for combat, this is great for you. But, in the actual combat when facing your opponent, (non sport) you do not know your opponents background. At least, the chance of not knowing him/her is highly likely. And, even though it is great to "get to know thyself", it will not be very helpful for you, in knowing your opponent. Simply because no two people, will ever experience life the same way. Although our 'biological make up conditions our behaviour' our experiences always determine our biological makeup, as do our choices.

If you know the person, yes you have a better understanding of their 'rulesets' but, if you do not know your opponents, you will be very hardpressed, even to understand their rulesets.

And, the law, really doesn't take any of that into consideration, when it comes to being in a situation where you must defend life and limb. It cares only if you had justification.

An interesting concept though.

i am not sure we are thinking along the same trajectory of thought, but i like your input and would like to hear more.

i will lay out one concept that comes to mind for me. we are all coded from birth to have an "Us/ Them" circuit that differentiates between the two. When we see someone as a "them" ( outside of our own group) we are more inclined to use lethal violence on the individual. the closer our brain recognizes the individual to our own group the more we are going to exhibit con specific aggression (non lethal violence). this is encoded within us from an evolutionary necessity to help propagate our own DNA over others. one can imagine the conflics between groups of humans and between humans and Neanderthal or Clovis.
we can see this behavior in chimps. within the group there is conflict but these are dominance disputes and neither party sustains much injury. however chimps actually go out on patrol of their territory and if an outside chimp is found the chimps will literally rip and tear the outsider to little pieces. Jane Goodall was very hesitant to document this behavior because it is just so brutal.
this delineation between us / them explains why in combat we de-humanize the enemy. the enemy if often seen as "subhuman" Dave Grossman does a good job explaining this process in his books. it also explains why in a bar fight often times getting the other guy to submit is enough and in combat we often switch on a more predatory behavior. we feel more empathy when in an "us" mode and less empathy in a predatory "them" mode.
this is a biological response and not something you can tell yourself to feel different about. maybe you can lose your bias over time but not in the moment.

my earlier post was directed at behaviors like us/ them and how it creates our own moral code of ethics and those morals were passed into our laws.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
oh yeah except for the black slaves and those indians, there not really human anyway.

but over time we did begin to see them as US and the laws now protect against hate crimes.
however concentration camps, gulag's , May lay, Nanking... all examples of "other" mind set. we can try to convince ourselves that we are more modern now and things like that wont happen in todays society but they keep happening. it will never stop, its in our DNA.
its a law or rule that governs our species.

 

[dvcochran]

I agree that this is a gross explanation of how people respond in extreme situations. But it is not consistent. Not everyone is going to act in the ways you describe. There will always be people in the foxhole so driven by fear that they cannot move or act. Many will die by the hands of "them" without lifting a finger. It is a very hard concept for people who have never really been in the life/death situation to grasp and process rationally.

Your example of how blacks and Indians used to be treated is proof that we change. Our code changes. Individual conditions effect how/when the code changes. Some through external and internal influence, some that strain of humans simply dying off. We are not the same species we were 1000 years ago.
There is continued violence through hate crimes. The cause and effect is one way these internal/external influences come about.
Everyone will agree we have came a long way since the 1700 &1800's.

 

[hoshin1600]

it is not consistent. Not everyone is going to act in the ways you describe

Yes that is a given. Robert Sapolski has some good lectures on line that explains how the wide range of nature vs nuture influences effect us and brings our behavior right down to the individual level. But he is a firm believer in the idea we have no free will.

Your example of how blacks and Indians used to be treated is proof that we change. Our code changes. Individual conditions effect how/when the code changes.

The brain circuitry doesn't change. All that changed was how we perceived the individual. There are studies that were done where someone was given a sports team hat to wear and what was shown is that if the test subject was from a different city from the sports team they were more likely to put that person in a "them" catagory, but then the person said he was born in the same city as the test subject and wow all of the sudden that person becomes recognized as an "US".

 

[hoshin1600]

We also know about 2% of the population does not feel remorse when killing and these are not necessarily psychopathic monsters. Most are good people but their brain registers empathy differently.
I initially used the term rules for consistency in the post but rules are really constraints. One of the things I said was that people say there are no rules on the street. But if rules are constraints then street fighting still has constraints. Example. ..weight classes. In the ring there is a rule of being in the same weight class as the opponent. On the street this rule does not apply BUT if we think with a paradigm shift this removal of one rule brings a different constraint to the surface. I am constrained by the laws of my own human body. I cannot grow to be the size of Brock Lesnar. I cannot change my age or physical limitations. These are constraints we have to contend with and still fight with them and try to be successful. In the ring the rule acts as a constraint to midagate the constraints of physical limitation. By removing one you didn't remove the other.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

Really, I thought we were discussing Rulesets, pertaining to combat. So, I will bow out, of this conversation.

 

[hoshin1600]

Really, I thought we were discussing Rulesets, pertaining to combat. So, I will bow out, of this conversation.

Why bow out? I'm sure you have a lot of value to add to the conversation.

 

[jobo]

I agree that this is a gross explanation of how people respond in extreme situations. But it is not consistent. Not everyone is going to act in the ways you describe. There will always be people in the foxhole so driven by fear that they cannot move or act. Many will die by the hands of "them" without lifting a finger. It is a very hard concept for people who have never really been in the life/death situation to grasp and process rationally.

Your example of how blacks and Indians used to be treated is proof that we change. Our code changes. Individual conditions effect how/when the code changes. Some through external and internal influence, some that strain of humans simply dying off. We are not the same species we were 1000 years ago.
There is continued violence through hate crimes. The cause and effect is one way these internal/external influences come about.
Everyone will agree we have came a long way since the 1700 &1800's.

I'm not sure it's at all true, that we have progressed as a species since 1700, if the acceptable behaviour has changed in a very small number of countries in really only the last few decades, a world wide look at the behaviour of our " species" shows that precisely nothing has change apart from the method of persecutions have more ssophistication,,

even a good number of the counties we currently vi as civilised are engage in the persecution of their own populations, though the targets may have changed, or maybe not

 

[hoshin1600]

Where do rules come from? I would propose they are an expectation extended to society based on our own morality. Our morality is conditioned by our biology, behaviors that are chemical based in our systems many of which we share with other species. Monkeys understand "fairness" they get very angry if one monkey is given a bigger piece of banana then the others.
Interesting studies have been done and it has been suggested that pastoral nomadic people's and their decedent's have higher rates of violence than agricultural or hunter gatherer societies. The nomadic people have a "honor" code, a morality that is cultural. This allows certain violence to be morally ok within that culture.

Sorry if I am rambling, just thinking out loud..on in text as the case may be.

 

[dvcochran]

It the 1700's Monarchy's were the norm and democracy was not even a thing. Public execution was a form of control. Slavery/serf/indentured servant was much more of the norm. Especially on your side of the pond. I would say mankind has come a long, long way.

 

[dvcochran]

Where do rules come from? I would propose they are an expectation extended to society based on our own morality. Our morality is conditioned by our biology, behaviors that are chemical based in our systems many of which we share with other species. Monkeys understand "fairness" they get very angry if one monkey is given a bigger piece of banana then the others.
Interesting studies have been done and it has been suggested that pastoral nomadic people's and their decedent's have higher rates of violence than agricultural or hunter gatherer societies. The nomadic people have a "honor" code, a morality that is cultural. This allows certain violence to be morally ok within that culture.

Sorry if I am rambling, just thinking out loud..on in text as the case may be.

I can see that with nomadic people. They are too busy just trying to survive to fight. Somewhere in that they may have figured out the odds of winning, fighting mother nature or natural predators, was not in there favor. So to survive they have to stay on the move. I wonder if this is more out of necessity rather than "honor". After doing this for centuries I can see this as cultural.

 

[jobo]

It the 1700's Monarchy's were the norm and democracy was not even a thing. Public execution was a form of control. Slavery/serf/indentured servant was much more of the norm. Especially on your side of the pond. I would say mankind has come a long, long way.

well I said, some countries have moved a bit, most of the world however has not, and as your comments was about our species rather than the uk or America your comments are at best inaccurate. slavery was never a y legal thing in the uk, well not since the Romans left anyway though modern slavery is quite common now and it wasn't a all a couple of decades ago so that's going backwards

democracy goes back thousands of years, even the Romans had a play with it, in between emperor's