UFC vs Traditional MA Debate

[lklawson]

There are so many ways to send message. They just happen to choose that method. What does it have to do with rules?

I can't believe you are actually this naive. No, really, I don't. I think you're just arguing for fun and "points."

Hahaha.... this is funny.
I suppose you know their rules? If you don't, then how do you know that the rules weren't created by them?
If you do know, tell us their rules then.

THEIR rules? No. I'm not part of their peer group. But I've been part of other peer groups. Every group, often defined by location and/or social strata, has "rules." Usually, they're not written down. Often they're not well articulated. But there ARE certainly "rules" which govern how they interact with each other, those outside of their group, and what actions/reactions are acceptable. Very frequently, those actions that are acceptable are far more violent then what most of "civilized" (i.e.: "Middle Class") society thinks should be acceptable. Why? Because they're in a different peer group in a different social strata and usually in a different geographic location. That doesn't mean that the "violent class" doesn't have rules. It just means that YOU don't know what they are.

I'm, frankly, tired of writing the exact same thing over and over again. Either you are incapable of reading, incapable or understanding what you've read, or deliberately arguing for the sake of argument. I suspect the latter. Further, my suspicion, based upon what you've written thus far, is that you are fairly young (probably early to mid 20's) and are most likely still deeply controlled by atavistic male-dominance ritual and that this argument has become a way to express your dominance.

This has been explained to you at least 5 times by 3 different posters. You persist in ignoring it. You are not going to impress any females into having sex with you, nor are you going to climb the male social hierarchy here, by your repeated refusal to acknowledge what Socialists have known for a generation or two. You can put away your peacock feathers now. <sigh>

 

[nocturnal_]

I can't believe you are actually this naive. No, really, I don't. I think you're just arguing for fun and "points."

It was previously a discussion about MA with rules vs MA with no rules. You're the one that started to define the definition of rules, etc, which deviates from the original discussion. When you responded to my post, of course I had to respond back.

THEIR rules? No. I'm not part of their peer group.

Then what qualification do you have to tell me and everyone else that they follow certain rules? How could you prove that their rules exist, while you don't even know their rules?

But I've been part of other peer groups. Every group, often defined by location and/or social strata, has "rules." Usually, they're not written down. Often they're not well articulated. But there ARE certainly "rules" which govern how they interact with each other, those outside of their group, and what actions/reactions are acceptable. Very frequently, those actions that are acceptable are far more violent then what most of "civilized" (i.e.: "Middle Class") society thinks should be acceptable. Why? Because they're in a different peer group in a different social strata and usually in a different geographic location. That doesn't mean that the "violent class" doesn't have rules. It just means that YOU don't know what they are.

Ok. You've been a part of other peer groups that have rules. But you can't make the same assumptions to other peer groups that you are not a part of. They are just your assumptions.

I'm, frankly, tired of writing the exact same thing over and over again. Either you are incapable of reading, incapable or understanding what you've read, or deliberately arguing for the sake of argument. I suspect the latter.

That's because you keep writing your assumptions about other groups that you've never been a part of.

This has been explained to you at least 5 times by 3 different posters. You persist in ignoring it. You are not going to impress any females into having sex with you, nor are you going to climb the male social hierarchy here, by your repeated refusal to acknowledge what Socialists have known for a generation or two. You can put away your peacock feathers now. <sigh>

You're the one insisting on people to believe the existence of rules in a peer group that you are not a part of. You seem to be offended that I don't agree with your views.

 

[Aiki Lee]

Nocturnal, clearly you have little understanding of sociology and psychology of human beings. lklawson is right. He is scientifically proven to be right as every major sociologist and psychologist would agree with him on his assessment of human behavior. I&#8217;ll explain more pieceby piece if you have the patience to indulge me.

There are many possible reasons they stomped on his groin, rather than other parts of the body. Definitely not because there's a rule.

I used to say there were no rules on street too, until I took some time to actually think about how people get into fights and how actual confrontations escalate. There are rules that may be broken or ignored(like laws against battery) but even then there are certain social practices that are always followed, but those practices will be different based on someone&#8217;s socio-economic-cultural background.
When these people attacked the person in your story it was ok by their rules even though it is unacceptable to society at large. Criminals of all kinds do follow some sort of social protocol. No man is an island, and interaction is necessary and in order for any interaction to occur unspoken rules must be obliged.
The following statements are rather irrelevant to the topic, but I will show you how rules of some kind do dictate how we approach our choices according to a psychodynamic approach.

When you decided to train in martial arts, was it because you chose to do so OR was it because you were following some rules?

When you decided on where to live, was it because you chose to do so OR was it because you were following some rules? When you decided to eat some certain food (not others), was it because you chose to doso OR was it because you were following some rules?

Life is about choices, not rules.

First, legality must be considered, the most formal of rules. Martial arts training is legal in most places so choosing to train is affected by rules asmost people don&#8217;t want to be caught breaking the law. But that is beside the point here.
In the psychodynamic school of thought, human behavior rand though processes are shaped by our desire to seek things that bring us comfort and avoid discomfort and our desire to seek relationships with others.
Rules of basic interaction that involve what you consider to be appropriate govern who you will choose to speak with and whether you willseek out a certain martial arts teacher for an instructor type relationship. Ifthe instructor fits into your &#8220;schema&#8221; (mental categories of what we think things are or should be) then you will seek training with him. If he doesn&#8217;t fit into your schema then you won&#8217;t.
It&#8217;s the same for everything including eating and selecting a home. If we accept that one has the means to live where he want sand eat what he wants, why does he select certain things?
Houses for example, does it fit my idea of what a home should be? Is it in a neighborhood that fits my schema of what a neighborhood should be? Are the people similar enough to me that I feel comfortable around them? These are examples of &#8220;rules&#8221; used to judge where you choose to be.
Food isn&#8217;t all about taste either. You may be aware that it&#8217;s not a great idea to eat onions on a first date or you may be dieting to better match your personal schema of what you think you should look like. You may have cultural taboo on food like pork. You might have personal bias against eating bugs because where you come from, that&#8217;s gross and eating bugs would be a source of stigma.


So you are right that life is about choices. But choices are made in context of who you are with, where you are, what you believe, and what will happen when norms and rules are violated.

There are so many ways to send message. They just happen to choose that method.What does it have to do with rules?

Everything. They attacked your friend because he broke a rule they held. They attacked his manhood possibly because it is symbolic of what your friend did by allegedly romancing the assailant&#8217;s girlfriend. They attacked him because by their rules this response was ok. They did not kill him because that response was not appropriate to them. The rules they chose to follow at that time whether out of a personal preference or a legal one did not allow certain forms of retaliation.

Hahaha.... this is funny.
I suppose you know their rules? If you don't, then how do you know that therules weren't created by them?
If you do know, tell us their rules then.

All rules are created by people, but not all rules are intentionally created. A law against assault is an obviously created rule, but the rule of personal space is informally constructed and will vary from culture to culture, person to person, and its violation will result in varied responses depending on many factors.
Gang culture is still culture and all culture has hierarchy, rules to advance in that society, stigma to be avoided, and other rules. If you study them you will know their rules.
But it isn&#8217;t a matter of knowing someone else&#8217;s rules it&#8217;s a matter of living by your own rules. You don&#8217;t know if the guy you are in a confrontation with is a gang banger who is going to try to stab you or if he is just an obnoxious loudmouth who wants to get into a fist fight so he can tellhis buddies a neat story.
All you know is what you will find acceptable in certain contexts. You must defend yourself based on how you view the situation, but how you view the situation may not be how others view it. You might think that a pre-emptive strike is warranted for example, and you may be right. But someone watching might think that you just attacked a person and you are the aggressor, now you have to defend yourself in court. So what people find appropriate and acceptable will vary. Those are the rules being discussed.

It was previously a discussion about MA with rules vs MA with no rules. You're the one that started to define the definition of rules, etc, which deviates from the original discussion. When you responded to my post, of course I had to respond back.

The point, I believe, is that there are always some forms of rules being followed. The rules I choose to follow might not be the ones my opponent chooses, but we still both follow some basic concept of what is appropriate for us in our situation.

Then what qualification do you have to tell me and everyone else that they follow certain rules? How could you prove that their rules exist, while youdon't even know their rules?

You cannot isolate a person&#8217;s choices from their cultural context. Because of this there are always some kind of rules in play.

Ok. You've been a part of other peer groups that have rules. But you can't makethe same assumptions to other peer groups that you are not a part of. They arejust your assumptions.

We can&#8217;t make assumptions about what their rules are. We would have to study their behavior to know that. Wild apes have rules too you know. And human beings are apes. We are social creatures, therefore we follow some sort of social protocol no matter what.

That's because you keep writing your assumptions about other groups that you'venever been a part of.



You're the one insisting on people to believe the existence of rules in a peergroup that you are not a part of. You seem to be offended that I don't agreewith your views.

The only reason someone could not agree with the argument is because they do not understand the argument. This may be to poor word choice on its proponents&#8217; behalf or it may be because this thought process doesn&#8217;t fit with you schema.
Your &#8220;rule of thought&#8221; may not currently allow you to accept this as fact, but it is fact. The passion you exhibit over this topic is a result of cognitive dissonance. You experience cognitive dissonance when something that makes sense doesn&#8217;t agree with your previous thought process so the first notion is to reject it. Soon you will begin to consider it and perhaps assimilate it. That is the healthy process of learning in humans.

 

[lklawson]

Nocturnal, clearly you have little understanding of sociology and psychology of human beings. lklawson is right. He is scientifically proven to be right as every major sociologist and psychologist would agree with him on his assessment of human behavior. I&#8217;ll explain more pieceby piece if you have the patience to indulge me.

I used to say there were no rules on street too, until I took some time to actually think about how people get into fights and how actual confrontations escalate. There are rules that may be broken or ignored(like laws against battery) but even then there are certain social practices that are always followed, but those practices will be different based on someone&#8217;s socio-economic-cultural background.
When these people attacked the person in your story it was ok by their rules even though it is unacceptable to society at large. Criminals of all kinds do follow some sort of social protocol. No man is an island, and interaction is necessary and in order for any interaction to occur unspoken rules must be obliged.
The following statements are rather irrelevant to the topic, but I will show you how rules of some kind do dictate how we approach our choices according to a psychodynamic approach.



First, legality must be considered, the most formal of rules. Martial arts training is legal in most places so choosing to train is affected by rules asmost people don&#8217;t want to be caught breaking the law. But that is beside the point here.
In the psychodynamic school of thought, human behavior rand though processes are shaped by our desire to seek things that bring us comfort and avoid discomfort and our desire to seek relationships with others.
Rules of basic interaction that involve what you consider to be appropriate govern who you will choose to speak with and whether you willseek out a certain martial arts teacher for an instructor type relationship. Ifthe instructor fits into your &#8220;schema&#8221; (mental categories of what we think things are or should be) then you will seek training with him. If he doesn&#8217;t fit into your schema then you won&#8217;t.
It&#8217;s the same for everything including eating and selecting a home. If we accept that one has the means to live where he want sand eat what he wants, why does he select certain things?
Houses for example, does it fit my idea of what a home should be? Is it in a neighborhood that fits my schema of what a neighborhood should be? Are the people similar enough to me that I feel comfortable around them? These are examples of &#8220;rules&#8221; used to judge where you choose to be.
Food isn&#8217;t all about taste either. You may be aware that it&#8217;s not a great idea to eat onions on a first date or you may be dieting to better match your personal schema of what you think you should look like. You may have cultural taboo on food like pork. You might have personal bias against eating bugs because where you come from, that&#8217;s gross and eating bugs would be a source of stigma.


So you are right that life is about choices. But choices are made in context of who you are with, where you are, what you believe, and what will happen when norms and rules are violated.



Everything. They attacked your friend because he broke a rule they held. They attacked his manhood possibly because it is symbolic of what your friend did by allegedly romancing the assailant&#8217;s girlfriend. They attacked him because by their rules this response was ok. They did not kill him because that response was not appropriate to them. The rules they chose to follow at that time whether out of a personal preference or a legal one did not allow certain forms of retaliation.



All rules are created by people, but not all rules are intentionally created. A law against assault is an obviously created rule, but the rule of personal space is informally constructed and will vary from culture to culture, person to person, and its violation will result in varied responses depending on many factors.
Gang culture is still culture and all culture has hierarchy, rules to advance in that society, stigma to be avoided, and other rules. If you study them you will know their rules.
But it isn&#8217;t a matter of knowing someone else&#8217;s rules it&#8217;s a matter of living by your own rules. You don&#8217;t know if the guy you are in a confrontation with is a gang banger who is going to try to stab you or if he is just an obnoxious loudmouth who wants to get into a fist fight so he can tellhis buddies a neat story.
All you know is what you will find acceptable in certain contexts. You must defend yourself based on how you view the situation, but how you view the situation may not be how others view it. You might think that a pre-emptive strike is warranted for example, and you may be right. But someone watching might think that you just attacked a person and you are the aggressor, now you have to defend yourself in court. So what people find appropriate and acceptable will vary. Those are the rules being discussed.

The point, I believe, is that there are always some forms of rules being followed. The rules I choose to follow might not be the ones my opponent chooses, but we still both follow some basic concept of what is appropriate for us in our situation.



You cannot isolate a person&#8217;s choices from their cultural context. Because of this there are always some kind of rules in play.



We can&#8217;t make assumptions about what their rules are. We would have to study their behavior to know that. Wild apes have rules too you know. And human beings are apes. We are social creatures, therefore we follow some sort of social protocol no matter what.



The only reason someone could not agree with the argument is because they do not understand the argument. This may be to poor word choice on its proponents&#8217; behalf or it may be because this thought process doesn&#8217;t fit with you schema.
Your &#8220;rule of thought&#8221; may not currently allow you to accept this as fact, but it is fact. The passion you exhibit over this topic is a result of cognitive dissonance. You experience cognitive dissonance when something that makes sense doesn&#8217;t agree with your previous thought process so the first notion is to reject it. Soon you will begin to consider it and perhaps assimilate it. That is the healthy process of learning in humans.

That was well written. Kudos.

I've kinda given up on his. He jumped the shark when he issued the "fly out to me on your own dime and punch someone" challenge.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[nocturnal_]

Nocturnal, clearly you have little understanding of sociology and psychology of human beings. lklawson is right. He is scientifically proven to be right as every major sociologist and psychologist would agree with him on his assessment of human behavior. I&#8217;ll explain more pieceby piece if you have the patience to indulge me.

lklawson should tell it to street thugs about what every major sociologist and psychologist say. I want to see whether they would care about it.

When these people attacked the person in your story it was ok by their rules even though it is unacceptable to society at large. Criminals of all kinds do follow some sort of social protocol. No man is an island, and interaction is necessary and in order for any interaction to occur unspoken rules must be obliged.
The following statements are rather irrelevant to the topic, but I will show you how rules of some kind do dictate how we approach our choices according to a psychodynamic approach.

I've said it before. If there was a rule, it's a rule that they created themselves for themselves. lklawson disagreed.
And it's not my story, it was RTKDCMB who posted about the things that happened to his friend.

In the psychodynamic school of thought, human behavior rand though processes are shaped by our desire to seek things that bring us comfort and avoid discomfort and our desire to seek relationships with others.
Rules of basic interaction that involve what you consider to be appropriate govern who you will choose to speak with and whether you willseek out a certain martial arts teacher for an instructor type relationship. Ifthe instructor fits into your &#8220;schema&#8221; (mental categories of what we think things are or should be) then you will seek training with him. If he doesn&#8217;t fit into your schema then you won&#8217;t.
It&#8217;s the same for everything including eating and selecting a home. If we accept that one has the means to live where he want sand eat what he wants, why does he select certain things?
Houses for example, does it fit my idea of what a home should be? Is it in a neighborhood that fits my schema of what a neighborhood should be? Are the people similar enough to me that I feel comfortable around them? These are examples of &#8220;rules&#8221; used to judge where you choose to be.
Food isn&#8217;t all about taste either. You may be aware that it&#8217;s not a great idea to eat onions on a first date or you may be dieting to better match your personal schema of what you think you should look like. You may have cultural taboo on food like pork. You might have personal bias against eating bugs because where you come from, that&#8217;s gross and eating bugs would be a source of stigma.

These are choices, not rules.
I've eaten bugs when I visited Thailand.
What rules did I follow?

So you are right that life is about choices. But choices are made in context of who you are with, where you are, what you believe, and what will happen when norms and rules are violated.

While I chose to eat bugs during the trip in Thailand, some people chose not to. Clearly either one of us don't follow rules.

They attacked your friend because he broke a rule they held. They attacked his manhood possibly because it is symbolic of what your friend did by allegedly romancing the assailant&#8217;s girlfriend. They attacked him because by their rules this response was ok. They did not kill him because that response was not appropriate to them. The rules they chose to follow at that time whether out of a personal preference or a legal one did not allow certain forms of retaliation.

It wasn't my friend. It was RTKDCMB's story about his friend.
But here's my personal experience: I kneed a mugger in the groin. But I did it not because I was following rules. I did it because there was an opportunity for me to do so. It's not because the mugger romancing my girlfriend.

My point is: people that assaulted RTKDCMB's friend may have other reasons to attack the groin. The groin itself is a weak point that's quite often being targetted in a street fight. Yes, it could be because they wanted to send a message, but that's just one of the many possible reasons.

But it isn&#8217;t a matter of knowing someone else&#8217;s rules it&#8217;s a matter of living by your own rules.

That's what I've been saying. If there are rules in the street, many street thugs create their own rules. But lklawson disagrees with this.

We can&#8217;t make assumptions about what their rules are. We would have to study their behavior to know that. Wild apes have rules too you know. And human beings are apes. We are social creatures, therefore we follow some sort of social protocol no matter what.

lklawson's the one making assumptions all organisation (including the ones he's not part of) has rules.

The only reason someone could not agree with the argument is because they do not understand the argument. This may be to poor word choice on its proponents&#8217; behalf or it may be because this thought process doesn&#8217;t fit with you schema.
Your &#8220;rule of thought&#8221; may not currently allow you to accept this as fact, but it is fact. The passion you exhibit over this topic is a result of cognitive dissonance. You experience cognitive dissonance when something that makes sense doesn&#8217;t agree with your previous thought process so the first notion is to reject it. Soon you will begin to consider it and perhaps assimilate it. That is the healthy process of learning in humans.

I appreciate you're trying to explain everything in a clear and thoughtful manner, which is something lklawson was unable to do.

I've kinda given up on his. He jumped the shark when he issued the "fly out to me on your own dime and punch someone" challenge.

I was asking that person to prove his point and potentially winning money that significantly more than the airfare. It was very clear (it's a different thread), but you decided not to tell the whole story.

 

[Cyriacus]

"I was asking that person to prove his point and potentially winning money that significantly more than the airfare. It was very clear (it's a different thread), but you decided not to tell the whole story."

Especially the part about asking me to do something illegal several times, for money.

 

[RTKDCMB]

What I think is happening here is that you two are arguing two sides of different coins.

UFC has rules. Most styles that are commonly used in the UFC are also styles that have rules, like: Muay Thai, BJJ, Boxing, Judo, Wrestling. Martial Arts that have no rules won't do well in UFC, even if the practitioner trains at the same frequency as in the professional UFC fighter. It's a different matter when it's a street fight where anything goes.

"There are no rules on the street" is contrary to actual law, research by sociologists, and actual evidence.

When someone says that "there are no rules on the street" they are usually referring to the fact that martial art competitions have rules (such as no punching to the back of the head or kicking to the groin) that simply do not generally apply in the outside world. This is what I think nocturnal was trying to say, and he is correct. Then lklawson incorrectly took it as meaning there are no rules at all. He then went on to say that there are rules on the street, meaning that societies and individuals have laws, rules and guidelines that govern their behaviour and determine what is acceptable and what is not and he is correct. This confusion of ideas and subsequent debate was probably fueled a bit my my statement;

If there are rules on the street many street thugs aren't following them.

- my bad.

This refers to the the fact that the rule-set of your average street thug is incongruent with society as a whole, inconsistent between individuals and largely unknown by the defender/victim in an assault and very little to do with competition style rules, which was my error.

When you are faced with a potential attacker you have no idea what they may find acceptable behavior or what they would be willing to do to hurt you. The only thing you can do is act according to the available information based on what you see, your instincts and intuition and what you may be able to discern from the context of the situation and the sociological setting you are in.

I hope we can now all move on.

 

[Cyriacus]

"Then lklawson incorrectly took it as meaning there are no rules at all. He then went on to say that there are rules on the street, meaning that societies and individuals have laws, rules and guidelines that govern their behaviour and determine what is acceptable and what is not and he is correct. This confusion of ideas and subsequent debate was probably fueled a bit my my statement;"

If you go back and read, youll find that we both clarified, several times, that we are referring to a different. Kind. Of Rules.
And not competition esque rules.

Weve been over this.
Also, im lazy with quotes right now because my phone is weird. Dont ask.

 

[Aiki Lee]

lklawson should tell it to street thugs about what every major sociologist and psychologist say. I want tosee whether they would care about it.

I worked with “street thugs” before at shelters. They certainly do recognize that their groups hold certain things sacred and meaningful and that is what their rules are based on. They know that within their peer group certain things are unacceptable. They may be wildly different from what you or I think is appropriate but they still have rules even if they do not recognize them.

I've said it before. If there was a rule, it's a rule that they created themselves for themselves. lklawson disagreed.
And it's not my story, it was RTKDCMB who posted about the things that happened to his friend.

Their society creates the rules not the individual himself. An individual might have a personal sense of how such rules apply to him and what is appropriate conduct but he judges those thoughts and actions against how he feels his society will respond to them. This is all done rather quickly and informally in the mind by everyone. It’s subtle enough that people don’t know they are doing it for the most part as it is built into our psychology from the beginning stages of childhood.
Oh and sorry to both you and RTKDCMB for mixing up who said what. When I responded to your statements about it, I forgot the story wasn’t originally yours.

These are choices, not rules.
I've eaten bugs when I visited Thailand.
What rules did I follow?

In Thailand it is acceptable to eat insects as part of the diet. In America it generally would be a source of stigma depending on what social context you are in. You eat bugs in Thailand because the society doesn't care.
Now you might say that “I’d eat bugs in America if they were prepared right no matter what society thinks.” That would be an example ofyou adopting a counter culture rule set. You may live by rules that are slightly different from the norm, but you still have rules. You still consider what is or isn’t appropriate for you in your current situation. You might eat bugs whenat an exotic restaurant with friends, but probably not at a formal dinner party.
Your various choices you have in every circumstance willvary depending on those circumstances. Your choices are affected by what you feel to be appropriate for the situation. Those are rules.

While I chose to eat bugs during the trip in Thailand, some people chose not to. Clearly either one of us don't follow rules.

Did you eat insects as a staple of the diet of the culture or did you just pick bugs off the ground and munch on them? You both conducted yourself appropriately in the culture. You did by choosing to try something theculture offered, and your friend did by declining. If your friend freaked out at the notion of you eating bugs that would be a violation of societal rules, just like in America if someone freaked out over you eating a hamburger it would be weird and unexpected.


Informal rules are a set of expectations. When you follow expectations you follow rules.

But here's my personal experience: I kneed a muggerin the groin. But I did it not because I was following rules. I did it becausethere was an opportunity for me to do so. It's not because the mugger romancingmy girlfriend.

So why didn’t you kill him? It’s more than you just didn’t want to. It’s because it wasn’t appropriate.
You are following rules. Escalation of force determines what is appropriate for self-defense. You know there were certain things youcan do and not be punished for them. You wouldn’t knee a random person in the groin. It’s not acceptable, but it is acceptable to do that to someone who attacks you. That’s what I’m getting at.
No matter who you are there will always be choices for aperson based on what is acceptable to their society at large, to their social circle, and to themselves. What is or isn’t acceptable are the “rules” being discussed here.

My point is: people that assaulted RTKDCMB's friend may have other reasons to attack the groin. The groin itself is a weak point that's quite often being targetted in a street fight. Yes, it could be because they wanted to send a message, but that's just one of the many possible reasons.

Yes I understand that but no matter what their reasons were they had actual reasons in their minds to do so. These reasons are governed by what that group considered appropriate. Even though that kind of behavior is illegal and unacceptable at large it is acceptable to that peer group. Other kinds of retaliation may have been considered “over the top” or “not enough”, There was some sort of judgment made about what to do, and that judgment is based in their perception of rules.

That's what I've been saying. If there are rules in the street, many street thugscreate their own rules. But lklawson disagrees with this.

See I don’t think he does. It might be misunderstanding here. Gang members for example have their own set of rules that are unique for their situation. They don’t make up the rules for no reason though or just on a whim, every rule serves function (whether that function is important to you or me or not doesn’t matter to the group that establishes it).
Say the guys in the story didn’t attack the ladies’ man. Then the thug might have been ridiculed and disrespected, seen as weak by the rest of the group. There may have been serious consequences for him if he didn’t commit the battery.
The rules are different and constructed by the group based off what they think is important and needed. Often the individual has little say over them.

lklawson's the one making assumptions all organisation (including the ones he'snot part of) has rules.

He would be right. All organizations whether formal or informal have some kind of rules. If not then they cannot work as a group ororganization.



I think the crux of the issue is that when people say there are “no rulez” on “the street” what they actually mean is that there are likely no agreed upon rules. You might be working off of rule set A which coincides with the law and how you were raised. Your attacker might follow rule set B which places what he was taught about “being a man” and may go against what the law says and what most of society thinks. He breaks the rules of set A because they are not his rules, but follows the rules of set B because he thinks they supersede what the law or society at large says.

 

[lklawson]

I think the crux of the issue is that when people say there are &#8220;no rulez&#8221; on &#8220;the street&#8221; what they actually mean is that there are likely no agreed upon rules. You might be working off of rule set A which coincides with the law and how you were raised. Your attacker might follow rule set B which places what he was taught about &#8220;being a man&#8221; and may go against what the law says and what most of society thinks. He breaks the rules of set A because they are not his rules, but follows the rules of set B because he thinks they supersede what the law or society at large says.

Well written. Kudos.

Care to take any bets as to whether or not it "falls on deaf ears?"

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[mcmoon]

Nocturnal your getting slaughtered with science and logic, just walk away.

Also you said that since there are "no rules on the street" you could sneak up on a mixed martial artist and attack them and you think a tma is gonna be any better at taking a bat to the back head?

You also claim that you will just pick up a weapon which means there is probably some break from the fight or it hasnt started yet which means (as a past mma competitor) I am either going to run or pick up a weapon too(being that I am probably in better condition I will be able to out run you as well lol). If you are in the middle of the fight chances are you will not have a chance to get a weapon

You also can't realistically train these "dirty tricks" or you would not have any training partners because they would either be crippled or dead. Not saying they can't be pulled off just not as likely or easily.

 

[Cyriacus]

Nocturnal your getting slaughtered with science and logic, just walk away.

Also you said that since there are "no rules on the street" you could sneak up on a mixed martial artist and attack them and you think a tma is gonna be any better at taking a bat to the back head?

You also claim that you will just pick up a weapon which means there is probably some break from the fight or it hasnt started yet which means (as a past mma competitor) I am either going to run or pick up a weapon too(being that I am probably in better condition I will be able to out run you as well lol). If you are in the middle of the fight chances are you will not have a chance to get a weapon

You also can't realistically train these "dirty tricks" or you would not have any training partners because they would either be crippled or dead. Not saying they can't be pulled off just not as likely or easily.

Furthermore, 'dirty tricks' dont help you if youre smacked in the back of the head.

Also, being willing to grab weapons is a rule.

 

[mcmoon]

Furthermore, 'dirty tricks' dont help you if youre smacked in the back of the head.

Also, being willing to grab weapons is a rule.

but..............there are no rules on the street?

 

[Cyriacus]

but..............there are no rules on the street?

I cant tell if youre being funny or serious. If youre making a joke, it was a pretty great joke.

 

[nocturnal_]

Nocturnal your getting slaughtered with science and logic, just walk away.

Also you said that since there are "no rules on the street" you could sneak up on a mixed martial artist and attack them and you think a tma is gonna be any better at taking a bat to the back head?

Furthermore, 'dirty tricks' dont help you if youre smacked in the back of the head.

Huh? I never said anything about anyone capable of taking a beating of a bat to the back of the head.

You also claim that you will just pick up a weapon which means there is probably some break from the fight or it hasnt started yet which means (as a past mma competitor) I am either going to run or pick up a weapon too(being that I am probably in better condition I will be able to out run you as well lol). If you are in the middle of the fight chances are you will not have a chance to get a weapon.

I was talking about the same age, same size, same amount of training. Before these posts became polluted with lklawson's posts about rules, sociology, etc, I did write that it's the amount of training that make people's perception that an MMA fighter is better than other fighter. If the amount of training is equal, the ones training with no-rules will have the advantage. So both fighters have same physical shape.

The fighter that don't care about rules are very likely to bring weapons and launch a sneak attack.

You also can't realistically train these "dirty tricks" or you would not have any training partners because they would either be crippled or dead. Not saying they can't be pulled off just not as likely or easily.

Not training in the traditional (for a lack of better word) sense. If you've lived in a third world country as a teenager, you would've had many street fights. And in many third world countries, police don't spend that much time and resources to investigate murders, unless if it's a politician or a celebrity that's being murdered. In other words, people could and have died from those fights, while many murderers went unpunished by the law because of lack of police resources. I would consider fighting for survival in the street as training as well.

Also, being willing to grab weapons is a rule.

Everything's a rule to you then. Everything's a choice to me. I view my life this way.

 

[nocturnal_]

I think the crux of the issue is that when people say there are “no rulez” on “the street” what they actually mean is that there are likely no agreed upon rules. You might be working off of rule set A which coincides with the law and how you were raised. Your attacker might follow rule set B which places what he was taught about “being a man” and may go against what the law says and what most of society thinks. He breaks the rules of set A because they are not his rules, but follows the rules of set B because he thinks they supersede what the law or society at large says.

I can agree to this. Himura Kenshin, unlike lklawson, you've debated very well and wrote clever and thoughtful responses.

 

[Cyriacus]

"Everything's a rule to you then. Everything's a choice to me. I view my life this way."

Choices are governed by rules.
You know how alot of people wont raise their voice in public? Thats a rule. You know how alot of people will? Thats a rule.
Maybe analogies will make sense to you

 

[RTKDCMB]

(being that I am probably in better condition I will be able to out run you as well lol).

No t necessarily - If you were in better condition than Usain Bolt, could you outrun him?

If you are in the middle of the fight chances are you will not have a chance to get a weapon

No t necessarily - It does not take much time for someone to pick up a weapon that is handy or pull one out.

 

[Cyriacus]

No t necessarily - It does not take much time for someone to pick up a weapon that is handy or pull one out.

You cant get a weapon if youre not given a chance - Defenders disadvantage.

 

[RTKDCMB]

You cant get a weapon if youre not given a chance - Defenders disadvantage.

That's why you do not give them the chance.