Martial arts as defense on the streets

Discussion in 'General Self Defense' started by Gweilo, Jul 19, 2019.

  1. pdg

    pdg Senior Master

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2018
    Messages:
    2,991
    Likes Received:
    847
    Trophy Points:
    213
    Going off the available evidence of this particular discussion, we're far from having a common working definition in this instance...

    Part of the reason for this disparity is that the huge variety of legal definitions are actually clouding the colloquial usage that we'd be much more likely to (almost) universally accept.

    In essence, self defence is easy to understand - it's the action of defending oneself. Simple.

    But then as soon as you start a discussion on the subject in detail, problems arise with whether you're defending yourself or defending someone else, whether it's actually classifiable as self defence if you didn't comply with the duty to retreat and/or stand your ground (and then an argument about those duties not applying everywhere), whether it's transformed into a consensual fight because you hit back/hit first, how fast and how far you are able to run and whether your assailant is armed with a cheeky cabernet.

    I can't see a way to move this forward myself.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. And for those who enter the conversation at a later time, will be seriously confused concerning the actual subject at hand. This is why we have definitions that are universal, so that everyone will understand. Deviating from those definitions, is what cause confusion.
     
  3. pdg

    pdg Senior Master

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2018
    Messages:
    2,991
    Likes Received:
    847
    Trophy Points:
    213
    But a universal definition is something we don't have here.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. To many individual self proclaimed definitions cause this very problem and is why I do not fable in individual definitions.
     
  5. jobo

    jobo Grandmaster

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2017
    Messages:
    5,841
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Location:
    Manchester UK
    no that definition takes precedance e for me it's the only one that is applicable, you need to find the legal definition in your jurisdiction, then we all have to realise that conversations with others in a different jurisdiction on what should be included in the definition of self defence is pointless, as each has the only definition they are ever likely to need.

    if you share a jurisdiction, then discussions are equally pointless, as it's already defined in legal text and a quick google will put the matter to bed for ever
     
  6. drop bear

    drop bear Sr. Grandmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Messages:
    17,178
    Likes Received:
    4,141
    Trophy Points:
    308
    Except nobody knows what you mean because the term is vague.

    And then you use that vagueness to claim you didn't mean or say what you said.
     
  7. drop bear

    drop bear Sr. Grandmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Messages:
    17,178
    Likes Received:
    4,141
    Trophy Points:
    308
    Oh. You never said that?

    Here we go again.

    You asked the question. How do we create an umbrella term that defines self defense that everyone can agree to.

    And the answer is we don't.

    We define the specifics and the umbrella term takes care of itself.

    We still have self defense as a concept. We just don't compete to claim ownership of it.

    Would you punch in self defence?
    It is a stupid question. There are specific circumstances to punch there are ones that might be better not to.

    Adding self defense makes that concept awkward. But people use it for its marketing value. As it sounds definitive.
     
  8. gpseymour

    gpseymour MT Moderator Staff Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    • Supporting Member
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    21,651
    Likes Received:
    6,342
    Trophy Points:
    448
    Location:
    Hendersonville, NC
    ..
    Okay, so which definition? That's the question. And what do you do when the definition doesn't clearly define the edges of the concept? Or do you just ignore that and hope everyone has the same edges in mind?
     
  9. gpseymour

    gpseymour MT Moderator Staff Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    • Supporting Member
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    21,651
    Likes Received:
    6,342
    Trophy Points:
    448
    Location:
    Hendersonville, NC
    We can come up with a common definition, as long as we all recognize nobody needs to "win". So, if you and I start talking about the topic and realize we aren't using the same definition, I can accept yours (let's assume you used the word first), or we could take a moment to figure out what's common about our use of the term. Or we can decide it's not really important and just choose a definition that fits the discussion at hand.

    With self-defense, this happens a lot. The definition I use is closer to the legal definition, and so more limited than the definition many people use (which includes avoidance, alarm systems, etc.). In discussion, I can usually figure out pretty quickly if they're including (in that discussion) those other areas. If so, I simply use their definition of self-defense for that discussion, so we aren't talking at cross-purposes.
     
  10. gpseymour

    gpseymour MT Moderator Staff Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    • Supporting Member
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    21,651
    Likes Received:
    6,342
    Trophy Points:
    448
    Location:
    Hendersonville, NC
    You keep saying that. Yet you haven't addressed any of the issues inherent in that approach. You don't seem to really want to discuss this, yet you keep tossing in comments that only reiterate an approach I've already pointed out has limitations.

    Not sure what your goal is here.
     
  11. gpseymour

    gpseymour MT Moderator Staff Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    • Supporting Member
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    21,651
    Likes Received:
    6,342
    Trophy Points:
    448
    Location:
    Hendersonville, NC
    So, you just don't talk about it with anyone who lives somewhere else? No overlapping concepts can ever be discussed in that context?

    And all of this ignores that self-defense isn't only a legal concept (as an affirmative defense). That's one use of the word.
     
  12. gpseymour

    gpseymour MT Moderator Staff Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    • Supporting Member
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    21,651
    Likes Received:
    6,342
    Trophy Points:
    448
    Location:
    Hendersonville, NC
    No. You just like to say people do that. It's your way of baiting people, trying to get them away from actual discussion into your attempts at verbal traps. It's not terribly productive, especially when you continue to prosecute it over several threads.
     
  13. gpseymour

    gpseymour MT Moderator Staff Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    • Supporting Member
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    21,651
    Likes Received:
    6,342
    Trophy Points:
    448
    Location:
    Hendersonville, NC
    I said we never had to use specific terms. See, you're once again trying to make weasling out of your poor communication skills.

    So, you think we don't lose anything by never talking about responding to non-consensual physical violence outside of agreed-upon fights, except insofar as we discuss them individually...never as an overall group? Really?
     
  14. No, I have given my reasons, you just do not want to accept that I do not care about personal definitions. I told you why, it causes confusion. It is something that allows a person to be right all the time

    Yes, I have lost interest in that type of discussion.
     
  15. pdg

    pdg Senior Master

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2018
    Messages:
    2,991
    Likes Received:
    847
    Trophy Points:
    213
    That's all well and good if it's you and I having a discussion, we reach an accord as to where the boundaries are.

    And it can easily accommodate a few more participants, as long as their predefined boundaries aren't too dissimilar to ours (or one or all of us will move sufficiently to make it work - that happens a lot).

    But in an open forum it gets difficult, because Bob says our boundaries are far too narrow for what he can/does do - so we could expand and continue.

    But then Frank says that's no good because 80% of the discussion is stuff he can't (/won't) use, and Darryl backs him up.

    Then Stuart says Frank and Bob are stupid and don't know what they're talking about, Laura jumps in to defend Bob, Bob says he can fight his own arguments, Tarquin says he's a vegan and we all end up arguing about bacon.

    Not that I'm saying it's not entertaining, just that I've come to accept that most subject matter (especially transatlantic) needs to have a wide interpretation...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. jobo

    jobo Grandmaster

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2017
    Messages:
    5,841
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Location:
    Manchester UK
    you can talk about it, just don't keep pushing your home sdpun definition on ppeople it is only a legal concept,if it wasn't for the legal concept of unlawful assault there wouldn't be any need for the concept of self defence, it would just be called fighting
     
  17. gpseymour

    gpseymour MT Moderator Staff Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    • Supporting Member
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    21,651
    Likes Received:
    6,342
    Trophy Points:
    448
    Location:
    Hendersonville, NC
    Yes, you've given reasons, and acted as if there are no inherent issues in that approach. You've not been actually discussing anything from the beginning.
     
  18. gpseymour

    gpseymour MT Moderator Staff Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    • Supporting Member
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    21,651
    Likes Received:
    6,342
    Trophy Points:
    448
    Location:
    Hendersonville, NC
    Well said.
     
  19. I think that when people are using, logic, reasoning and critical thinking, they misunderstand the concept concerning definitions.

    The definitions, that are agreed upon, are meant to have their start in known and accepted definitions. A person, is not meant to come up with what they individually think it means.

    This is where dictionaries, a legal definitions are important.

    This is why legal definitions are extremely important, the courts thedecide if what you have done, follows the lawful definitions and that is why, the legal definitions seem vague. It is the circumstance related to the legal definition that are important.

    I see this mistake made by a people when it comes to an agreement in defining words or expressions.

    Doing it this way, (what it means to you even if agreed upon by the other party) gives one of the parties an upper hand in the debate.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. gpseymour

    gpseymour MT Moderator Staff Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    • Supporting Member
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    21,651
    Likes Received:
    6,342
    Trophy Points:
    448
    Location:
    Hendersonville, NC
    I don't push my definitions. You actually ought to know that. I generally use common-usage definitions. When mine differs from someone else's, I generally let them know (to acknowledge any confusion it may have created) then work with theirs, unless there's a reason theirs doesn't fit the topic as it is being discussed (as when you often step into a discussion and insist others must use the definition of a word as you prefer it, when a different usage is already working well for those invovled).
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

diy bokken for self defense