Martial arts as defense on the streets

[Gerry Seymour]

I will, myself continue to use the definition provided by linguistic professional s. As, stated before, these people are professionals with years of study and decades of experience.

So here's the first one I find: "the defense of one's person or interests, especially through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime." That leaves a lot of undefined borders, because it doesn't really delineate what "one's...interests" would include.

Here's the second one I found: "the act of defending oneself, one's property, or a close relative." That already has a different element (protecting another person), unless we consider that within "one's...interests".

That's what I mean. Two people can use that first definition, agree that it's correct, and still disagree on the boundaries of it. Because it's conceptual (as opposed to the legal definition, where the boundaries tend to be better defined by case law - though that still varies somewhat by jurisdiction).

 

[dvcochran]

So if an aggressive bloke approaches me, wanting to fight, engaging him is no longer self defense, it becomes consensual?

That is correct. At least in the initial stages. The first choice should always be to walk away. If that option is taken away by the other person, it becomes self defense. If it is taken away by yourself, then it becomes consensual.

 

[pdg]

That is correct. At least in the initial stages. The first choice should always be to walk away. If that option is taken away by the other person, it becomes self defense. If it is taken away by yourself, then it becomes consensual.

Seems very much like interpretations vary wildly...

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I just did in that post.

Except you really didn't. You suggested an approach for discussing individual situations, which I agree with. But how do you suggest we refer to the body of those situations most folks would refer to as self-defense situations? What's a better term?

 

[drop bear]

Except you really didn't. You suggested an approach for discussing individual situations, which I agree with. But how do you suggest we refer to the body of those situations most folks would refer to as self-defense situations? What's a better term?

Why do we need to refer to them in those terms?

Especially when it makes analysis more difficult.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Why do we need to refer to them in those terms?

Especially when it makes analysis more difficult.

I never said we need to refer to it in those terms. But it is useful to be able to talk about the concept overall. Not having a term for that is like trying to talk about that sport one game at a time. You can dissect each play, each period, and each game. But you can't talk bigger than that, because you can't really talk about the sport without giving it a name. You can't talk about disagreements over what really it is, because you can't refer to it.

Without a term, it becomes more vague.

 

[Gweilo]

That is correct. At least in the initial stages. The first choice should always be to walk away. If that option is taken away by the other person, it becomes self defense. If it is taken away by yourself, then it becomes consensual.

I agree with the avoidance part, but if the option to escape is taken away by the other person, if I wait for them to attack me, then retaliate, in your opinion would be self defense, but if I strike my opponent pre emptively, this is consensual? Even if the attack is immenent?. I do not know about US law, but in the UK, if it's a person's word against another's, with no, or inconclusive evidence, then the rule of probability is used, a person confronting me, blocking my escape, telling me they are going to smash my face in, or worse, a pre emptied strike would in my opinion constitute an act of self defense, but not in the case of a near miss in senario in jobo's post.

 

[dvcochran]

I agree with the avoidance part, but if the option to escape is taken away by the other person, if I wait for them to attack me, then retaliate, in your opinion would be self defense, but if I strike my opponent pre emptively, this is consensual? Even if the attack is immenent?. I do not know about US law, but in the UK, if it's a person's word against another's, with no, or inconclusive evidence, then the rule of probability is used, a person confronting me, blocking my escape, telling me they are going to smash my face in, or worse, a pre emptied strike would in my opinion constitute an act of self defense, but not in the case of a near miss in senario in jobo's post.

I agree, but in my opinion that is still the other person taking your options away.
It can often be a grey area and a personal judgement that each person has to make for themselves.

Strike first, strike hard certainly has its merits. I cannot run at any real speed any more so it would be pretty high on my list of "what would I do first".

 

[Deleted member 34973]

So here's the first one I find: "the defense of one's person or interests, especially through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime." That leaves a lot of undefined borders, because it doesn't really delineate what "one's...interests" would include.

Here's the second one I found: "the act of defending oneself, one's property, or a close relative." That already has a different element (protecting another person), unless we consider that within "one's...interests".

That's what I mean. Two people can use that first definition, agree that it's correct, and still disagree on the boundaries of it. Because it's conceptual (as opposed to the legal definition, where the boundaries tend to be better defined by case law - though that still varies somewhat by jurisdiction).

This is actually a great example of what I am talking about. If we are to determine what this means "self defense that is" to each of us and we discuss the meanings that you have posted, it would require you to define what each word, in that discription, means to you. So, that I would know exactly what you are discussing.

But, if I disagree with your definitions, the conversation would simply get bogged down, with trying to understand each others personal definitions concerning the self-defense concept.

It is simply to much, people are just different and will most likely come up with a discription that suits their argument. Which in the end only leads to understanding one person's idea of whatever concept.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is actually a great example of what I am talking about. If we are to determine what this means "self defense that is" to each of us and we discuss the meanings that you have posted, it would require you to define what each word, in that discription, means to you. So, that I would know exactly what you are discussing.

But, if I disagree with your definitions, the conversation would simply get bogged down, with trying to understand each others personal definitions concerning the self-defense concept.

It is simply to much, people are just different and will most likely come up with a discription that suits their argument. Which in the end only leads to understanding one person's idea of whatever concept.

You're overcomplicating it. Language is used to convey concepts we have in our brains. It is inexact, by its nature. So long as we understand each other, we don't need an exact definition of every word involved. You haven't needed to ask me to define any of the words in my posts, because the general concept of those words makes sense. In context, the usage becomes clearer. Some words are simply a bit more nuanced, so may need some discussion if we want to make sure we're talking about the same defined boundaries.

Definitions in dictionaries give us some guidance as to what someone likely meant by the use of the word (or, from the other side, what someone is likely to understand our usage to be). But they can't define the boundaries of the concept without getting lengthy.

 

[jobo]

You're overcomplicating it. Language is used to convey concepts we have in our brains. It is inexact, by its nature. So long as we understand each other, we don't need an exact definition of every word involved. You haven't needed to ask me to define any of the words in my posts, because the general concept of those words makes sense. In context, the usage becomes clearer. Some words are simply a bit more nuanced, so may need some discussion if we want to make sure we're talking about the same defined boundaries.

Definitions in dictionaries give us some guidance as to what someone likely meant by the use of the word (or, from the other side, what someone is likely to understand our usage to be). But they can't define the boundaries of the concept without getting lengthy.

that's a mostly incorrect view you've expressed many time, in order to force your particular definition on people, but it's clear that the process you describe is NOT happening here or the prelonged discussion on the definition of self defence would not be happening in which case only exact definitions rather than wooly word to describe wooly concepts will address the problem

 

[Gerry Seymour]

that's a mostly incorrect view you've expressed many time, in order to force your particular definition on people, but it's clear that the process you describe is NOT happening here or the prelonged discussion on the definition of self defence would not be happening in which case only exact definitions rather than wooly word to describe wooly concepts will address the problem

Except that you've ENTIRELY missed my point (as you usually do, I believe on purpose). My point isn't that others must use or even accept my definition. I provide mine so they know what I meant. I happily use others' definitions when discussing something they said (because the way they intended the word is what's important in that context).

So, give me an exact definition of self-defense that everyone could use, with clear boundaries. (For your statements to make sense, you'll have to find it defined in a dictionary, so that others would be able to look it up when the term is used.)

 

[Deleted member 34973]

You're overcomplicating it. Language is used to convey concepts we have in our brains. It is inexact, by its nature. So long as we understand each other, we don't need an exact definition of every word involved. You haven't needed to ask me to define any of the words in my posts, because the general concept of those words makes sense. In context, the usage becomes clearer. Some words are simply a bit more nuanced, so may need some discussion if we want to make sure we're talking about the same defined boundaries.

Definitions in dictionaries give us some guidance as to what someone likely meant by the use of the word (or, from the other side, what someone is likely to understand our usage to be). But they can't define the boundaries of the concept without getting lengthy.

Actually I am not, if you are to describe something, you would need to define it exactly to me or my own interpretations will take affect and we still would not understand each others stance.

I believe this why we hear "we can agree to disagree" so much these days and in my personal opinion...that expressions definition is a copout to me.

 

[jobo]

Except that you've ENTIRELY missed my point (as you usually do, I believe on purpose). My point isn't that others must use or even accept my definition. I provide mine so they know what I meant. I happily use others' definitions when discussing something they said (because the way they intended the word is what's important in that context).

So, give me an exact definition of self-defense that everyone could use, with clear boundaries. (For your statements to make sense, you'll have to find it defined in a dictionary, so that others would be able to look it up when the term is used.)

I've given it previously in this thread, which is the uk legal definition of self defence. if you don't like that, pick an an American legal definition, ( if there's a difference those differences are of major importance)those are indeed as clearly defined as its possible to get and as self defence is first and foremost a legal concept any thing other than a legal definition is totally inadequate to convey the meaning

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Actually I am not, if you are to describe something, you would need to define it exactly to me or my own interpretations will take affect and we still would not understand each others stance.

I believe this why we hear "we can agree to disagree" so much these days and in my personal opinion...that expressions definition is a copout to me.

But that's where you're overcomplicating it. Language conveys (mostly) concepts. Concepts are not precise, by their very nature. So, as long as we understand each other, we don't need precision.

If you think definitions never differ, then why do dictionaries often have multiple definitions for the same word? And how do we figure out which one people are using? Do you always have to ask each time which definition of a given word someone intends?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I've given it previously in this thread, which is the uk legal definition of self defence. if you don't like that, pick an an American legal definition, ( if there's a difference those differences are of major importance)those are indeed as clearly defined as its possible to get and as self defence is first and foremost a legal concept any thing other than a legal definition is totally inadequate to convey the meaning

So, that definition takes precedence over the definition used in any other jurisdiction? If we each use the legal definition in our jurisdiction, how can we ever converse over the topic? By the approach you're attempting to use, there are literally at least dozens of variations of the definition. (And that's without even considering common usage, which doesn't restrict itself to the legal definition.)

 

[Deleted member 34973]

But that's where you're overcomplicating it. Language conveys (mostly) concepts. Concepts are not precise, by their very nature. So, as long as we understand each other, we don't need precision.

If you think definitions never differ, then why do dictionaries often have multiple definitions for the same word? And how do we figure out which one people are using? Do you always have to ask each time which definition of a given word someone intends?

That is determined by the subject at hand. But, if we accept everyone's personal definition, they have probably gone outside the bounds of the subject matter.

 

[Gweilo]

Can we have an extra button added to the agree, disagree, like at the bottom of the post options. I suggest a ***** slap button

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That is determined by the subject at hand. But, if we accept everyone's personal definition, they have probably gone outside the bounds of the subject matter.

We don't have to accept everyone's personal definition, but if we want to have effective communications we have to acknowledge that the dictionary definition isn't complete for all situations. So if we're in doubt, we need a common working definition to share for a discussion.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

We don't have to accept everyone's personal definition, but if we want to have effective communications we have to acknowledge that the dictionary definition isn't complete for all situations. So if we're in doubt, we need a common working definition to share for a discussion.

We need the actual definition to completely understand the discussion. Agreeing on a different definition, will change the concept of the subject, effectively removing the reason for even having a discussion. At least on my end.