Thoughts on the "what martial art should I take for self-defense" question

[jobo]

I have actually jobo, cover to cover, probably about 10 years ago, and I go back to it every so often. To be honest the way I see things and have grown over the last 10 years has changed dramatically so I will probably go back and read it all again from a new perspective, as I was definitely in a different place then and would be reading it from that particular viewpoint. Also read the gospel of Thomas, which wasn't included in any bible, I think because it runs against the belief that Christ and God were outside of you, whereas this text really focuses you within yourself, nonduality and Christ consciousness within you.

We're actually on the same page here with some stuff, and absolutely, there is alot of... questionable stuff XD. Like I said, it's a collection of books written by people, and I think the error lies in taking it as a whole singular work, trying to prove or disprove it etc, and also in saying it is the literal word of God, which is a very very dangerous position to take. I have personally experienced quite recently people who have hid behind and used bible scripture to justify treating people absolutely horrendously. It was traumatic, and horrible, but alot was learned during it.

I have also had some very interesting conversations with JWs XD (and yes... Leviticus is....... interesting too to put it lightly haha). Some discussions were really lovely, and others there was just nowhere to go once a belief is firmly held onto, it's hard to really openly discuss.

I think that's great you've read those and also explored a little jobo. And what you have, which is a rigorous skepticism can actually be a real strength and serve you, and that in itself could be your own spiritual path.

Where it would have its limitations however is the denial of everything based on only using logic or scientific method, which is only limited to 'provables' and ideas of time and space. For the linear world of cause and effect that's fine, but misapplying it to the nonlinear (ie as seen in quantum mechanics) and it has no bearing or relevance whatsoever. But healthy skepticism is helpful, and it means you're not naive. But imbalanced skepticism leads to pride and lack of humility, lack of openness to growth.

And to me the difference between religion and spirituality is that religion does indeed involve spirituality, but it needs a system, adherence to a belief system, and scripture. It's a nice thing and beautiful when done with integrity, and to me spirituality takes the next step to being dedicated to truth alone, and in a nonreliance or nonattachment to scripture, and dismantling belief systems to reach the core of truth itself.

Anyway, we are potentially well off topic haha. The faking considering conversion just reminds me of George in Seinfeld XD classic.

people are inherently superstitious, are in that i include all religious deities. there is little difference between praying to the tree gods and praying to a crucifix made of wood, its the same physiological need to have a power higher than yourself to appeal to

there was possibly an evolutionary need for this, but in latter millenia its had a startling effect on slowing down the progress of mankind, though you guest it the scientific method. that is not only has supersticion lead to countless millions of deaths because you pray to the wrong idol, its killed countless millions more by holding back process in engineering and medication

 

[dvcochran]

people are inherently superstitious, are in that i include all religious deities. there is little difference between praying to the tree gods and praying to a crucifix made of wood, its the same physiological need to have a power higher than yourself to appeal to

there was possibly an evolutionary need for this, but in latter millenia its had a startling effect on slowing down the progress of mankind, though you guest it the scientific method. that is not only has supersticion lead to countless millions of deaths because you pray to the wrong idol, its killed countless millions more by holding back process in engineering and medication

We all know you are just trying to stir the pot. Take is somewhere else.

Here is something for you to think about. I believe mother nature is pretty damn smart and has many ways of taking care of her planet, such as mass extinctions. This virus is a very good example. A lot of people are supposed to die to even out some imbalance in the nature equation. Mankind, being so smart, is trying to prevent this to no avail.
It has happened and will happen again. Who knows? We may be in the precursor of another event right now.
Selfish people refuse to think along these lines and only see what is in front of them.

 

[jobo]

i was having a conversation about superstition with a friend of mine, when we were on a group holiday in north Yorkshire. he told me he wasn't at all superstitious, he was a rational engineer after all i, i told him he was and whats more id prove it by the scientific method.

as luck would have it we were having this conversation in whitby ( a small sea side town)

so at mid night we went up on the cliff, where lies a a ruined abbey and a small church with an ancient grave yard, this being the very same grave yard that featured as Dracula hiding place in England, in bran stokers novel,, its certainly atmospheric

in the middle of the grave yard is a raised stone grave with a skull and cross bones carved on it. so i sat him on the grave, introduced him to Pete the pirate whose grave it was and then left him there, to stay for an hour for payment of 100 pounds.

i hadnt got 100 yards when he over took me in full flight, pete had touched his arm, he had literally soiled himself and ran all the way home


yes superstition is deep routed even in those who are mostly rational intelligent beings

hers a picture of the grave yard and the second pic shows petes tomb

 

[jobo]

We all know you are just trying to stir the pot. Take is somewhere else.

Here is something for you to think about. I believe mother nature is pretty damn smart and has many ways of taking care of her planet, such as mass extinctions. This virus is a very good example. A lot of people are supposed to die to even out some imbalance in the nature equation. Mankind, being so smart, is trying to prevent this to no avail.
It has happened and will happen again. Who knows? We may be in the precursor of another event right now.
Selfish people refuse to think along these lines and only see what is in front of them.

im confused now are you invoking mother nature as an intelligent deity, or just referring to the process of evolution, which im general in agreement with,


the virus as as much right to life and to reproduce as any other entity, including ourselves, however we generally go round killing things that are a threat to our species, irrespective of their equal status, mother nature gave us the ability to do this and we will in due course eradicate this harmful stain of the virus, whilst at the same time the virus will be come less harmful, to avoid being eradicated, nature is indeed wonderful


the last point is rather my point above, once you considered that this or any other disease is ''gods will'', then you stop trying to cure prevent it and just sit there and wait to die, as to not die would be against '' gods will''obviously

 

[Steve]

Like some other members here, I hang out both on here and on the Martial Arts subreddit (r/martialarts). One of the big differences between this site and Reddit, is I feel this site has a good mix of people from all different backgrounds, while Reddit seems to focus heavily on combat sports that make it into MMA, with a lot of bashing of TMAs and RBSDs in the process. I was thinking about making this post over there (since it's more in response to the threads I've seen over there), but figured since I'm not going to be bowing before the golden calf of the UFC, I'll probably just get downvoted to oblivion and my message will be missed. So I'll make the post here, and I'll try to keep it in the context of this site.

The question that often comes up from beginners is "what art should I take for self-defense?" Another common question is experienced students who haven't ventured outside of their gym will ask "is my art effective for self-defense?"

The typical answer to this question on the MMA Cult Fan Club...I mean r/martialarts...is that if your art has a high representation in MMA, and you do live sparring in class, then your training is good. If your art doesn't have a sport component (like Krav Maga), or is based on non-resistive drills (like Aikido), then your art isn't good for self defense. It is this answer which I would like to discuss.

Before I get into it, I'd like to clarify that I have nothing against MMA, UFC, or any combat sport. I think combat sports are fun and exciting, and I think the live sparring they do is invaluable towards building skill and confidence. I think MMA and the UFC are excellent tests of martial arts, probably the best test we have. My only issue is with the gate-keeping mentality that if it's not MMA, it's bullshido.

speaking only for myself, it’s the tests and application the lead to skill development. So, you could train in an art that has a bad reputation, but if you test your skills and apply your skills, it may prove to e very effective. So, it’s not the TMA or rbsd that is the problem. Look at it this way, when guys train in a TMA and focus on application, like Lyoto Machida, It can be very effective. But that’s not what everyone does. The further away the training is from the application, the more unlikely it will succeed.

Situation 1: The Pre-Fight
Before the fight even begins, there's usually a build-up. Sometimes it's a sucker-punch or you get jumped, but in my experience it's far more likely that someone needs to be amped up before actually getting into a fight. In my adult life, I've never been jumped out of the blue. I've had people outright tell me they want to fight or beat me up, and I've had people try to play into my fight-or-flight response. By remaining calm and collected, I was able to avoid the fight in the first place.

I think most martial arts will do this. The confidence from class will help you to not lose your mind when someone tries to get you riled up. The discipline you learn will help you be patient and rational in a situation where they're trying to get you to think with your lizard brain. Even the exercise helps calm your mind and make you less likely to react out of anger. The number one solution to a bad dog (one that chews on everything or barks all night) is to take it for a walk to get it exercise. Same thing for a terror of a cat - get it some toys that will get it exercise so it's not laying around all day penting up all that energy.

This is also where sparring really helps. Not only is sparring going to give you the most confidence in your abilities, but it's also the best way to get rid of that pent-up aggression, so you're not seeking a fight when you go out at night. However, I think almost any martial art will help keep you poised under pressure.

One thing I hear a lot is that if the martial arts you've learned doesn't do a very good job of teaching the techniques (because of poor quality control, lack of resistive sparring, or fantastical techniques that won't work in real life), that someone is going to get into fights and get hurt. While it is true that they are less likely to win a fight if they haven't sharpened their technique, this misses the point entirely. A martial artist shouldn't be looking to get into fights, no matter how skilled they are. You're not "more likely" to get hurt, because you shouldn't be more likely to get into a fight.

I think this can be learned in a lot of ways, and MA is just one. In my misspent youth, and in the military, I managed to stay calm in a lot of situations without ever training MA.

Situation 2: The Typical Self-Defense Scenario
Typically you're not fighting against UFC champions when you need to defend yourself in the street. For one, I think most people who train martial arts get their aggression out in class and don't need to pick fights to get their fix. (Not everyone, but most people). If someone pulls a gun on you, chances are they aren't John Wick. If someone throws a punch, they're probably not as skilled as Mike Tyson.

A lot of people believe cross-training (or training a generalist art) is required to be able to defend yourself. In a typical situation, you can easily control where a fight happens and make it work to your advantage. Most of the time it takes a good shot from a boxer or a good take-down from a wrestler for the other person to realize "they actually know how to fight and this is going to be too much work." While you'd need a broader range of technique to compete in MMA, having a one-dimensional skill is generally fine for a street fight.

What about the more maligned arts, such as an RBSD or a TMA? These can still be successful, especially in a typical self-defense scenario. Aikido gets a really bad rap, but I recently saw a news clip of a convenience store clerk who disarmed a gunman using his Aikido training. Does this mean you will always have success disarming someone? No. But it can work, and saying it absolutely doesn't work (which I hear a lot from the MMA Jocks) is a break from reality.

i look at it like this. If you’re going to build a shed, you could theoretically do so with a bunch of trees, a hammer, some nails, and a saw. But that’s the hard way, unnecessarily hard. Now, if the journey of doing it the hard way is the goal, knock yourself out. But if the goal is to have a nice shed, you will have a much nicer shed in far less time if you use a prepared blueprint, precut lumber, shingles, and other fit for purpose materials, And power tools. With the right tools, and a willingness to leverage what others can do, you’ll see better results.

Also, when you say things like aikido works, how do you really know? What I mean is, in that situation, did the aikidoka perform better than someone who is untrained? No real way to know, without a study, but I can share anecdotaL stories about untrained people disarming bad guys too.

Speaking of breaks from reality, arts that are completely based on fantasy are not likely to work in a self-defense situation.

again, how do you know? I wouldn’t be surprised to hear a story or two of success. So, the question is, what’s the real difference between a TMA and a “fantasy art”. If I trained in Light saber fighting, and used a poster tube to disarm a bad guy, does that mean light saber fighting is no longer a fantasy art because it works (for someone)?

We already discussed that you should be able to avoid most fights. Of those potential fights that remain, a large number of them can be handled by someone with training in almost any art.

Situation 3: The Competent Attacker
Let's say you weren't able to avoid a fight, and that the person you're fighting with actually has some idea of what they are doing. It is at this point that non-resistive arts will start to fall off the map, and join the fantasy-based arts in irrelevance.

RBSD arts will have some viability...as long as what the attacker provides fits with the scenarios provided in the system. The more you spar, and the less you rely on specific drills to make that happen, the more likely you are to succeed.

One-dimensional sport fighters will still have a good chance, if they can keep the fight in their dimension.

Situation 4: The Skilled Attacker
Instead of the enemy from #3 being merely competent, let's say they are actually skilled. In this case, you either need to be a very skilled 1-dimensional fighter that can keep the fight where you want it, or you need to have multiple disciplines in order to press every advantage you can get.

The alternative is to "cheat". This is where using the threat of a weapon or an actual weapon to defend yourself becomes a much better option. (And I would argue a good option in most cases for Situations 1-3, because you won't know ahead of time if they are skilled or not). This is where having friends or other backup would be helpful. This is also why we should try and stick to situation #1 and just avoid the fight in the first place.

Situation 5: The Cheater
What if the other person cheats? What if they have a weapon of their own? Well, the same rules apply as going down the list.

1. Try to avoid the fight entirely
2. If they are stupid with it, then even arts that are much-maligned can be successful (the aikido anecdote I mentioned above)
3. If they are competent with it, you either need to be more skilled than them or you need to cheat, too

What if they have friends? Same rules again. Try to avoid the fight.

1. Most groups that attack you are going to have a leader who wants to fight, and a bunch of others there out of moral support.
2. If they have good teamwork and are each competent fighters in their own right, you need to be much more skilled than them, or you need to cheat, too.

I actually like the breakdown. The only flaw here is that to do any of those things, you need actual skill. The advantage sports have is that you can test your skill against skilled opponents. Otherwise, it’s a mystery, the time to find out you can’t actually fight is NOT when your well-being is on the line.

 

[Gweilo]

im confused now are you invoking mother nature as an intelligent deity, or just referring to the process of evolution, which im general in agreement with,


the virus as as much right to life and to reproduce as any other entity, including ourselves, however we generally go round killing things that are a threat to our species, irrespective of their equal status, mother nature gave us the ability to do this and we will in due course eradicate this harmful stain of the virus, whilst at the same time the virus will be come less harmful, to avoid being eradicated, nature is indeed wonderful


the last point is rather my point above, once you considered that this or any other disease is ''gods will'', then you stop trying to cure prevent it and just sit there and wait to die, as to not die would be against '' gods will''obviously

I admire your willingness to continue, even when you been done like a kipper

 

[_Simon_]

people are inherently superstitious, are in that i include all religious deities. there is little difference between praying to the tree gods and praying to a crucifix made of wood, its the same physiological need to have a power higher than yourself to appeal to

there was possibly an evolutionary need for this, but in latter millenia its had a startling effect on slowing down the progress of mankind, though you guest it the scientific method. that is not only has supersticion lead to countless millions of deaths because you pray to the wrong idol, its killed countless millions more by holding back process in engineering and medication

... am not sure what that has to do with what I said. Sure, people are superstitious. But you're superimposing this on anything you see as spiritual.

Exactly. Clinging to beliefs and identifying with them leads to some very dubious errors... millions of people dying etc. This is not exclusive to religion. And it's not actually religion that's the cause of that . My comment was not about religious belief and was steering away from that.

I certainly would not say that's just some physiological need. The search for meaning? Purpose? Truth? To limit it to some physiological or chemical process... come on man.

So is your 'scientific method' basically just to call anything that you personally don't understand, superstitious?

 

[Steve]

... am not sure what that has to do with what I said. Sure, people are superstitious. But you're superimposing this on anything you see as spiritual.

Exactly. Clinging to beliefs and identifying with them leads to some very dubious errors... millions of people dying etc. This is not exclusive to religion. And it's not actually religion that's the cause of that . My comment was not about religious belief and was steering away from that.

I certainly would not say that's just some physiological need. The search for meaning? Purpose? Truth? To limit it to some physiological or chemical process... come on man.

So is your 'scientific method' basically just to call anything that you personally don't understand, superstitious?

First, I have no problem with people believing whatever they want. However, while some fine distinctions between spiritual and superstitious can be made, they are at least in the same family.

 

[_Simon_]

First, I have no problem with people believing whatever they want. However, while some fine distinctions between spiritual and superstitious can be made, they are at least in the same family.

I would thoroughly disagree Steve, they are not even close. I actually wish the word spiritual wasn't used, because it's very embedded in that it means something tied in with something "supernatural" that's believed in.

But it may depend on what you mean by superstitious... I keep seeing definitions of it being related to either "believing in something not based on logic or rationality", and "a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences, especially as leading to good or bad luck, or a practice based on such a belief".

Whether it's believing an act causes something to happen that's not based on logic, or a belief in an event occurring that's a sign of something nonscientific, genuine spiritual enquiry is not based on belief, nor is it a requirement, and is actually a barrier. I think it comes down to definitions...

Even taking Zen as an example. It really cuts through all the fluff of having to adhere to beliefs and/or systems. There are still practices done, but they're not to gain an outcome, or not to reach an end/result, that trajectory is a barrier within Zen practice.

 

[jobo]

... am not sure what that has to do with what I said. Sure, people are superstitious. But you're superimposing this on anything you see as spiritual.

Exactly. Clinging to beliefs and identifying with them leads to some very dubious errors... millions of people dying etc. This is not exclusive to religion. And it's not actually religion that's the cause of that . My comment was not about religious belief and was steering away from that.

I certainly would not say that's just some physiological need. The search for meaning? Purpose? Truth? To limit it to some physiological or chemical process... come on man.

So is your 'scientific method' basically just to call anything that you personally don't understand, superstitious?

of course its superstitious what else do you call a belief in supernatural beings ? and its not that i dont understand, i understand the mental need, its just that no body understands it even those that are superstitious, thats why you need shaman to explain it to you


now theres a moral dilemma in this, superstitious people are to my observation generally happier than those who live by logic

im reminded of marxs observation that religion is the opium of the people, so do you have a population that is delusional but happy or correct but now having to face the fact there there is no actual meaning to existence and no reward in heaven and as a result of this truth some what more miserable ?

 

[_Simon_]

of course its supercilious, what else do you call a believe in supernatural beings ? and its not that i dont understand, i understand the mental need, its just that no body understands it even those that are superstitious, thats why you need shaman to explain it to you


now theres a moral dilemma in this, superstitious people are to my observation generally happier than those who live by logic

im reminded of marxs observation that religion is the opium of the people, so do you have a population that is delusional but happy or correct but now having to face the fact there there is no actual meaning to existence and no reward in heaven and as a result of this truth some what more miserable ?

Best of luck with everything.

 

[jobo]

I would thoroughly disagree Steve, they are not even close. I actually wish the word spiritual wasn't used, because it's very embedded in that it means something tied in with something "supernatural" that's believed in.

But it may depend on what you mean by superstitious... I keep seeing definitions of it being related to either "believing in something not based on logic or rationality", and "a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences, especially as leading to good or bad luck, or a practice based on such a belief".

Whether it's believing an act causes something to happen that's not based on logic, or a belief in an event occurring that's a sign of something nonscientific, genuine spiritual enquiry is not based on belief, nor is it a requirement, and is actually a barrier. I think it comes down to definitions...

Even taking Zen as an example. It really cuts through all the fluff of having to adhere to beliefs and/or systems. There are still practices done, but they're not to gain an outcome, or not to reach an end/result, that trajectory is a barrier within Zen practice.

if you take zen Buddhism and remove the religious aspects you get mindfulness, which has been subject to the scientific method and shown in studies to have much the same effect on depression/anxiety as drugs

which then supports my point of religion being a substitute for mood enhancing drugs,

i suspect you could do much the same with any aspect of prayer/incantations and get positive results with out the need to pollute it with superstition or you could just take drugs and save the bother, organised religions generally have a down on recreational drugs as it makes them redundant

 

[Steve]

I would thoroughly disagree Steve, they are not even close. I actually wish the word spiritual wasn't used, because it's very embedded in that it means something tied in with something "supernatural" that's believed in.

But it may depend on what you mean by superstitious... I keep seeing definitions of it being related to either "believing in something not based on logic or rationality", and "a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences, especially as leading to good or bad luck, or a practice based on such a belief".

Whether it's believing an act causes something to happen that's not based on logic, or a belief in an event occurring that's a sign of something nonscientific, genuine spiritual enquiry is not based on belief, nor is it a requirement, and is actually a barrier. I think it comes down to definitions...

Even taking Zen as an example. It really cuts through all the fluff of having to adhere to beliefs and/or systems. There are still practices done, but they're not to gain an outcome, or not to reach an end/result, that trajectory is a barrier within Zen practice.

I think maybe I don't understand your definition of spiritual. Do you think your definition is common?

 

[dvcochran]

I would thoroughly disagree Steve, they are not even close. I actually wish the word spiritual wasn't used, because it's very embedded in that it means something tied in with something "supernatural" that's believed in.

But it may depend on what you mean by superstitious... I keep seeing definitions of it being related to either "believing in something not based on logic or rationality", and "a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences, especially as leading to good or bad luck, or a practice based on such a belief".

Whether it's believing an act causes something to happen that's not based on logic, or a belief in an event occurring that's a sign of something nonscientific, genuine spiritual enquiry is not based on belief, nor is it a requirement, and is actually a barrier. I think it comes down to definitions...

Even taking Zen as an example. It really cuts through all the fluff of having to adhere to beliefs and/or systems. There are still practices done, but they're not to gain an outcome, or not to reach an end/result, that trajectory is a barrier within Zen practice.

Agree with slight exception.

Trying to break it down into simplest terms, I understand the term 'natural' as the things we are aware of due our senses (see, hear, smell, touch). Being complex beings we are able to integrate our senses to further understand and use things in our natural world.
Throughout time there have been things beyond our grasp of understanding. Always have been, always will be. There is no argument that, over time, we have grown and figured out that some things once considered 'supernatural' really are not. However, there are 'things' beyond our grasp and understanding. As we know them today they are supernatural.
This has nothing to do with mysticism and such. It is simply the things beyond our understanding.

All that said, do I think there is a higher power? Yes. I will leave it right there.

 

[jobo]

Agree with slight exception.

Trying to break it down into simplest terms, I understand the term 'natural' as the things we are aware of due our senses (see, hear, smell, touch). Being complex beings we are able to integrate our senses to further understand and use things in our natural world.
Throughout time there have been things beyond our grasp of understanding. Always have been, always will be. There is no argument that, over time, we have grown and figured out that some things once considered 'supernatural' really are not. However, there are 'things' beyond our grasp and understanding. As we know them today they are supernatural.
This has nothing to do with mysticism and such. It is simply the things beyond our understanding.

All that said, do I think there is a higher po


wer? Yes. I will leave it right there.

well no, natral is things that occurs with out the assistance or intervention of mankind, of man kind, our sences have nothing to do with it, there was nature long before, we were here to percieve it.l your other point has at least a little validity, supersticipn was used to explain things our brains couldnt othet wise explain, thunder obviously god moving the furniture,

however as iur undrstanding of nature has increased, the need to invoke a god to explain it has also dininished, that taking into account varius religions murdering scientist, so it took us hundred maybe thousands of years longer to reach this level of undrrstanding.

and the irony that religion is curently used to explain things we have a good grasp of and not at all used to explain things we are currently in the dark about, ive yet to see a religious expkination for quantum gravity for instance, other than the standard " god did it" which is raTher an absence of explanation

 

[Steve]

Agree with slight exception.

Trying to break it down into simplest terms, I understand the term 'natural' as the things we are aware of due our senses (see, hear, smell, touch). Being complex beings we are able to integrate our senses to further understand and use things in our natural world.
Throughout time there have been things beyond our grasp of understanding. Always have been, always will be. There is no argument that, over time, we have grown and figured out that some things once considered 'supernatural' really are not. However, there are 'things' beyond our grasp and understanding. As we know them today they are supernatural.
This has nothing to do with mysticism and such. It is simply the things beyond our understanding.

All that said, do I think there is a higher power? Yes. I will leave it right there.

in a thread about arts for self defense, I guess the question I have is WWJT? What would Jesus train? I think aikido, but I don’t think it would have helped him much.

 

[Steve]

We all know you are just trying to stir the pot. Take is somewhere else.

Here is something for you to think about. I believe mother nature is pretty damn smart and has many ways of taking care of her planet, such as mass extinctions. This virus is a very good example. A lot of people are supposed to die to even out some imbalance in the nature equation. Mankind, being so smart, is trying to prevent this to no avail.
It has happened and will happen again. Who knows? We may be in the precursor of another event right now.
Selfish people refuse to think along these lines and only see what is in front of them.

This is funny, in a gallows humor sort of way, and also quite informative. You think working to save lives in a pandemic is selfish behavior. That actually explains a lot about how some folks think.

for what it’s worth, I disagree completely, and see this as nihilistic amd selfish.

 

[dvcochran]

This is funny, in a gallows humor sort of way, and also quite informative. You think working to save lives in a pandemic is selfish behavior. That actually explains a lot about how some folks think.

for what it’s worth, I disagree completely, and see this as nihilistic amd selfish.

Had to look up nihilistic. That is as far from my perspective and belief's as you can get.

I am not at all advocating to not save lives. Never did; never have, never will. It is our moral responsibility to do all we can. How you read that into my comments says a lot about your cynical view of most things/people.
I put the thought out to Jobo knowing others would run with the notion.
If you think mankind can beat mother nature you are deluded.

 

[jobo]

Had to look up nihilistic. That is as far from my perspective and belief's as you can get.

I am not at all advocating to not save lives. Never did; never have, never will. It is our moral responsibility to do all we can. How you read that into my comments says a lot about your cynical view of most things/people.
I put the thought out to Jobo knowing others would run with the notion.
If you think mankind can beat mother nature you are deluded.

we are not actually in a war with mother nature, nature is our mother too, every thing we do, is wwmhat nature gave us the ability to do, maybe we could be wiser about what we do, but thats only because nature gave us the ability to be wise

 

[Steve]

Had to look up nihilistic. That is as far from my perspective and belief's as you can get.

I am not at all advocating to not save lives. Never did; never have, never will. It is our moral responsibility to do all we can. How you read that into my comments says a lot about your cynical view of most things/people.
I put the thought out to Jobo knowing others would run with the notion.
If you think mankind can beat mother nature you are deluded.

When you say pandemics (like this one specifically) are mother nature’s way of balancing things, that a lot of people are supposed to die, and that mankind’s collective efforts to stop it are selfish.... that’s pretty nihilistic and, in my opinion, quite selfish. You seemed to be quite clear in your post. Maybe go back and read it. You literally said those things. If that’s not what you meant, I’m looking forward to reading an explanation.

I don’t know what’s in your heart. I’m simply reacting to your words.