You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Philosophical DiscussionDo you have a philosophical view to martial arts styles, training, etc. ?
I think you guys are going off topic here. I think the thread was about one on one confrontation to settle disputes. Not social or political upheavals and coups. We're not talking revolution just meat heads.
__________________
I'm a shark, the ground game is my ocean. And most people don't know how to swim. Oh yeah and I can knock you out too
Everything I know in life, I learned from watching the Fall Guy.
Fighting on the street rarely solves anything. Its one thing to defend yourself from a dumb ass mugger that thinks intimidation is a good weapon, its another to start throwing down with people that say something stupid. It very rarely stops with just the fight. Its amazing how often some stupid beef will escalate to someone getting shot.
100% agree with this... I would defend myself if attacked and if my family is in danger. If someone is just talking crap I am a man and can deal with that. Until you try to hurt me, my family or friends then we could have a problem. Fighting doesn't help most of the time. If I kick his butt then he me! I want to me here for my family and to on the forum!!
I think you guys are going off topic here. I think the thread was about one on one confrontation to settle disputes. Not social or political upheavals and coups. We're not talking revolution just meat heads.
And there is a definite distinction between the two. I think people were trying to use the revolutionary, fight for a cause types as a counter to the meat head fights.
And there is a definite distinction between the two. I think people were trying to use the revolutionary, fight for a cause types as a counter to the meat head fights.
The issue comes this, going into a fight and no knowing who/what your dealing with becomes an issue. There are allot of meat heads who hide behind politic/social status for their actions. When you get into a fight and win, even in self-defense you have to be willing to accept the the aggressor might seek that social/political distenction for justification or retribution. Thus the basic "rich kid" tough guy who thinks (usually somewhat rightly so) that money allows him to be "above the law."
In the street you can't make a distinction between how a person comes at you, only that to end it requires an equal or greater response on the same level to end the situation. That is where I was getting it...
__________________
My Personal Mantra:
Where I walk, I walk alone...
Given unto the winds, I am free...
And yet a slave to my own soul...
Styles: Cloak and Sabre,longsword style wuthout a name.
Posts: 779
Home Country:
Wel if you consider fighting as sneaking beind someone and stabbin them, no its not fighting. That is murder, plain and simple.
And it doesnt matterwether you think picking a fight is o.k. Honestly just because someone finds it o.k. to murdur, doesnt make it o.k. That fact is set in stone.
__________________
"If your opponents sword says hello,greet him with two thunder claps."
"If you want your captive to give you honest answers,do not torture them.If you find out the location of their leader,then attacking the threat from its source."
In the military soldiers are conditioned to be anti-social; clannish, violent, aggressive and controlling.
Not so in my opinion. Many of the traits you mention seem to be the opposite of British soldiers I've met (now that's not many, granted, but I have met a few).
In fact, I recon traits like these are counter-productive to what would make a good soldier. Things like teamwork and maintaining calm under pressure would be much better skills to have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draven
And what is the difference when a police officer beats you down and incarcerates you for trying to address your rights as a citizen?
I don't see why someone would be beaten down by police simply for expressing their rights, unless they were being violent themselves.
As for the original post, the problem with using violence is you would have to be willing to really hurt someone, as well as getting hurt yourself. We've (probably) all stories about martial artists breaking attackers arms, legs etc, after an attemped mugging/assault/rape. Most of these stories can be put down to justified self defence, however there are a few stories floating around of martial artists beating someone to a pulp after quite a minor incident. The worst I've heard was a Jitsuka who broke the arm of a man who spilled his pint.
Whether or not these stories are true, it is a shame that people could take the health and wellbeing of another so lightly, especially when their own health and wellbeing are not at risk. I hope I never develop a mentality like that. It's just so intrinsically wrong to me.
The other problem is if person A thinks one thing and person B thinks another, if they were to fight would the winner be any more correct in his view than the loser? Probably not (unless the fight was over who was the better fighter of course ).
If person B was in the wrong in some way (if B was racist/sexist etc), fighting would not necessarily change his/her mind.
Naff examples aside, if violence was seen as an acceptable way of solving problems it puts the roles of judge, jury and perhaps, excutioner, in the hands of you and me. Where do you draw the line as to what is acceptable punishment for a mugger, for example? A black eye? Two? Broken fingers? Death? Where does the individual draw the line as to how they would react (assuming they had the ability). I don't trust you to deside on what's acceptable punishment for criminals, hell, I don't even trust myself after a couple of pints.
Also, where does the violence end? If person A kills person B what stops persons C,D,E,F,G and other member of the letterland gang coming to take revenge on person A.
__________________
Ah, Steven Seagull, I bet nobody's thought of that before.
N.B. you make some good points, the thing constant time spent around violence, training for violence or living in a subculture which praises violence you breed that experience within a person's mind. You say calm and teamwork and to an extent your right, except when calm is "broken" you revert to training; your conditioned responses.
Thats were soldiers become clannish; accociating only with other soldiers who can understand the military culture. Keep in mind being violent doesn't mean going around with a chip on your shoulder or looking for fights. It can be that or it can simply be left to simple disgust for "weaker" people or responding to violence or procieved violence with elevated violence.
On the other issue of police beating people down for trying to express their rights? Well, the same way violent environments can "poison" the preception of a soldier, it can have similar experiences on police officer and security personnel. Its happens and in many case it happens allot more then people give credit to. Now that doesn't mean all cops will react as such; but a great many do use/abuse drugs and they do abuse that power.
There are a great many books out there that will explain the psychology of violence to a greater extent then what you might get from this forum and from my own input.
__________________
My Personal Mantra:
Where I walk, I walk alone...
Given unto the winds, I am free...
And yet a slave to my own soul...
N.B. you make some good points, the thing constant time spent around violence, training for violence or living in a subculture which praises violence you breed that experience within a person's mind. You say calm and teamwork and to an extent your right, except when calm is "broken" you revert to training; your conditioned responses.
Thats were soldiers become clannish; accociating only with other soldiers who can understand the military culture. Keep in mind being violent doesn't mean going around with a chip on your shoulder or looking for fights. It can be that or it can simply be left to simple disgust for "weaker" people or responding to violence or procieved violence with elevated violence.
On the other issue of police beating people down for trying to express their rights? Well, the same way violent environments can "poison" the preception of a soldier, it can have similar experiences on police officer and security personnel. Its happens and in many case it happens allot more then people give credit to. Now that doesn't mean all cops will react as such; but a great many do use/abuse drugs and they do abuse that power.
There are a great many books out there that will explain the psychology of violence to a greater extent then what you might get from this forum and from my own input.
Once calm is broken teamwork goes out the window and people revert to training? Surely teamwork and calm manner is a major part of any soldiers training. And it would be most important once all hell breaks out. I think it would be a problem if they started panicking and running about on their own.
In fact, members of the armed forces and the police are people who should, and can, keep the most calm under pressure or when presented with violence since they are trained to react justly and within the law. Although there seems to be a difference between U.K army and police forces compared with U.S army and police force since I recon the U.S army (and possibly police force) has a bit more of a "yeehaw, lets get 'em" culture. No offence.
btw, +rep to Yossairian for a very concise set of posts on this thread.
__________________
Ah, Steven Seagull, I bet nobody's thought of that before.
Once calm is broken teamwork goes out the window and people revert to training? Surely teamwork and calm manner is a major part of any soldiers training. And it would be most important once all hell breaks out. I think it would be a problem if they started panicking and running about on their own.
In fact, members of the armed forces and the police are people who should, and can, keep the most calm under pressure or when presented with violence since they are trained to react justly and within the law. Although there seems to be a difference between U.K army and police forces compared with U.S army and police force since I recon the U.S army (and possibly police force) has a bit more of a "yeehaw, lets get 'em" culture. No offence.
Ask any British soldier and they'll say that. No offence, to the US soldiers or ex-soldiers of course.
Once calm is broken teamwork goes out the window and people revert to training? Surely teamwork and calm manner is a major part of any soldiers training. And it would be most important once all hell breaks out. I think it would be a problem if they started panicking and running about on their own.
When TSHTF you don't have time to think, you rehearse battle drill, firing at human siluetted targets, and various tactical movements/actions. All this is done so that when you are faced with combat for the first time and you become confused, you will revert to the first familiar experience which is your training.
The thing to remember is allot of frontline soldier are high school or college kids with no experience or knowledge of violent combat. Yes, a more experienced soldier can keep his head and he is usually the one using a little violence and aggression to keep the less experienced soldiers on track.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N.B
In fact, members of the armed forces and the police are people who should, and can, keep the most calm under pressure or when presented with violence since they are trained to react justly and within the law. Although there seems to be a difference between U.K army and police forces compared with U.S army and police force since I recon the U.S army (and possibly police force) has a bit more of a "yeehaw, lets get 'em" culture. No offence.
No, I seem to remember some London cops shooting an unarmed man who surrender to them from Brazil. The issue comes back to this; people who procieve themselves in positions of authority will almost always at some point over step that authority. Thats a fact of life, one that is based on civilized culture "Power corupts and absolute power corupts absolutely..." and all that.
In my experience the soldiers and cops who go around all "billy badass" are usually the ones who feel they need to compensate for something. Which means they end up over compinsating. Sorry I have a negative view of anyone in positions of authority, thats why I don't want to be in such positions myself.
__________________
My Personal Mantra:
Where I walk, I walk alone...
Given unto the winds, I am free...
And yet a slave to my own soul...
Well, it all depends on your personal views. Of course, ppl who know how to defend themselves will be at the top portion of the food chain in this imaginary world you are envisioning. Self defense is not something that is important to the majority anymore. Everyone seems to think that "I have a gun, I don't need any of that 'karate' crap", or the person who says "Most ciminals have guns. You can't karate chop a bullet." We are in a new era here....We are kind of at an impass in my opinion. On one hand, you have ppl who want their gun....On the other, you have ppl who don't WANT a gun. Which hand are you in? You see, if we allow ppl to just fight and handle their business, then the person who lost, USUALLY comes back with a gun because they know already that they can't physicaly beat the other person. Sad really....Just sad.
OMG me and another student were working with BB guns a few weeks ago, and I gotta say, when some fool is in front of you but a few feet away, its not hard for him to just jump left or right in time for you to miss him, then he come after you to take that gun before you recock it and fire again. Like the first 3 times I missed and got tackled to the ground until I started holding the gun differently. Makes you wonder why TMA dont hold more (hpw to actually hit shoot them classes), or why gun owners don't try and take some of those imaginary classes. HMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
When TSHTF you don't have time to think, you rehearse battle drill, firing at human siluetted targets, and various tactical movements/actions. All this is done so that when you are faced with combat for the first time and you become confused, you will revert to the first familiar experience which is your training.
The thing to remember is allot of frontline soldier are high school or college kids with no experience or knowledge of violent combat. Yes, a more experienced soldier can keep his head and he is usually the one using a little violence and aggression to keep the less experienced soldiers on track.
They are deliberately trained to become confused and to panic? After which they revert to training on the rifle range, shooting paper targets? And the army neglects to give them any training which prepares them for frontline combat? I know for a fact that this is not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draven
No, I seem to remember some London cops shooting an unarmed man who surrender to them from Brazil. The issue comes back to this; people who procieve themselves in positions of authority will almost always at some point over step that authority. Thats a fact of life, one that is based on civilized culture "Power corupts and absolute power corupts absolutely..." and all that.
The man hadn't surrendered to them at all. He was being followed by armed police who were told that he was involved in the recent tube train bombings. The man noticed he was being followed and began to run, the police gave chase. The man ran to stockwell tube station, jumped the ticket barriers and ran onto a train. This is where police officers caught up to him and shot him. According to eyewittnesses the man continued running even after the police made it clear that they were police officers and that he would be shot if he carried on.
Now, while this is an unfortunate (and very unlucky) thing to happen, look at it from the side of the police: A man you're following on suspicion of being involved in tube train bombings, notices you're following him and runs into a tube station, refusing to stop. If you think he's a terrorist with a bomb it's kinda a no-brainer isn't it. Either you shoot him now or you blow up with him.
It is worth noting that the enquiry which followed was all about why the police were given incorrect intelligence, rather than the conduct of the officers.
Police in the U.K don't even carry guns, seeing armed police is extremely rare. In this case it happened to be sparked by the fact we had the U.Ks biggest terrorist attack ever a couple of weeks beforehand. Hardly the norm.
The ironic thing is, if he realised he was being followed by the police he may have still been running due to the fact Brazilians have such a brutal police force and he might have assumed the British police were the same.
__________________
Ah, Steven Seagull, I bet nobody's thought of that before.
What exactly is so bad about fighting?
me! I want to me here for my family and to 
on the forum!!
