Never Trust Anyone That Hasn't Been Punched in the Face

[Flying Crane]

It's an unreadable article, tho I caught the part where he blames the fall of civilization on vegetarianism. Not manly enough.

 

[jedtx88]

So in theory if I ran around punching people in the face the world would be a better place?

 

[Blindside]

Well clearly you would then have more reason to trust those people....

 

[Cyriacus]

So in theory if I ran around punching people in the face the world would be a better place?

Time for Me to make a horrible joke.
Here goes.
...You mean when They Arrest You for Assault?

Now to quickly answer the OP.
People are Violent. The Article states the Obvious.
I cant say I agree with all of it, and it seems quite unnecessary to Me.

 

[Tez3]

What a complete load of bollocks that article is. From the first paragraph where he can't make his point without name calling and insults all the way through. Calling a child a 'shrimp' because he had to hand over his trousers to a violent mob, well I'm seriously betting the writer wouldn't have done the same. All this article shows is a self indulgent spoilt brat whining about life as he sees it, so change your life sunshine ... oh and shut up.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

While the author clearly takes a chest beating, Neanderthal-like, chauvinistic view point, and advocates "masculinity" in the form of violence (none of which, I support), I think the take home message is integrity and accountability. Having the fortitude to do what the given situation calls for. Standing up to bullies, doing what's right against the odds, standing your ground when you're right, admitting your defeat when you're wrong.

I would argue that these traits have less to do with making you a "real man" as much it does making you a "man of integrity." The term "Real man" can come off as macho.. .

But how does one foster this type of integrity? Solely intellectual study? Or does there have to be a physical component? If it does warrant a physical component, what would you all suggest that it be?

 

[Tez3]

Integrity is a personal virtue, nothing to do with physical, otherwise you are saying only fit non disabled people can act with integrity.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Integrity is a personal virtue, nothing to do with physical, otherwise you are saying only fit non disabled people can act with integrity.

Certainly there is no one road that gets everyone to the same destination. However, I believe that physical training, in some capacity, can facilitate and foster integrity when given support and parameters.

A great deal of things sound good in theory, but when it comes to practical application one needs the integrity to do what is right. Whether that be standing up when you are right or admitting defeat when you are wrong. Zen teaching, for example, reinforces the idea that teaching by speaking or showing is not nearly as effective as experiencing. If your only experience of reality is in your mind, then it's not really "objective reality," it's subjective.

To use your example, if a disabled person, were never presented with a situation that tested their integrity, whether it be physical or mental, then how would they know IF they truly had integrity? It is the "testing of mettle," that gives you the confidence to do what's right.

However, I do believe that regardless of "fitness," as long as you can be challenged physically, it can reinforce your integrity. Look at how many disabled persons participate in martial arts. I would not suggest that they are not being challenged physically. While they are certainly gaining personal growth through the mental aspect of martial training, I would argue that it is the combination of physical and mental challenge that is the best way to achieve those results.

 

[Tez3]

Certainly there is no one road that gets everyone to the same destination. However, I believe that physical training, in some capacity, can facilitate and foster integrity when given support and parameters.

A great deal of things sound good in theory, but when it comes to practical application one needs the integrity to do what is right. Whether that be standing up when you are right or admitting defeat when you are wrong. Zen teaching, for example, reinforces the idea that teaching by speaking or showing is not nearly as effective as experiencing. If your only experience of reality is in your mind, then it's not really "objective reality," it's subjective.

To use your example, if a disabled person, were never presented with a situation that tested their integrity, whether it be physical or mental, then how would they know IF they truly had integrity? It is the "testing of mettle," that gives you the confidence to do what's right.

However, I do believe that regardless of "fitness," as long as you can be challenged physically, it can reinforce your integrity. Look at how many disabled persons participate in martial arts. I would not suggest that they are not being challenged physically. While they are certainly gaining personal growth through the mental aspect of martial training, I would argue that it is the combination of physical and mental challenge that is the best way to achieve those results.

I think you should explain what integrity means to you because I'm really not sure we are talking about the same thing. Integrity is being honest, acting in a manner that is open, not being underhand, acting with honour. I'm not sure what you mean about being challenged physically etc giving you integrity, it doesn't, you can stand up for yourself, be brave and still be the biggest piece of dog's poo going. Testing your mettle isn't testing your integrity. #this is something different. You have integrity or you don't, it's having an honest nature. Testing it? That would be finding a wallet stuffed with banknotes on the street, hand it in or keep it? Given the wrong change in a shop, handing back the extra or not?

 

[punisher73]

Tried to read the article and couldn't make it through. He seemed to be pulling at straws from different bits of research from sociology and tried to put them all together.

About the only thing I would agree with is that in the US, a young male can go through his life without ever knowing if he is a coward or not because we do not have a set rite of passage to pass from child to man like many cultures do that challenge you in this fashion. This has been talked about in sociology circles before. Not sure it has any implications beyond that. To blame the perceived downfall or downward slope we are on to this is tenuous at best.

 

[Flying Crane]

So in theory if I ran around punching people in the face the world would be a better place?

no, you need to run around and get other people to punch you in the face. Then people could trust you and the world would be a better place.

 

[Tez3]

Tried to read the article and couldn't make it through. He seemed to be pulling at straws from different bits of research from sociology and tried to put them all together.

About the only thing I would agree with is that in the US, a young male can go through his life without ever knowing if he is a coward or not because we do not have a set rite of passage to pass from child to man like many cultures do that challenge you in this fashion. This has been talked about in sociology circles before. Not sure it has any implications beyond that. To blame the perceived downfall or downward slope we are on to this is tenuous at best.

I don't think you can classify cowardice so easily, if you run away from a mob that makes you sensible, if you start a fight when you shouldn't that makes you an idiot however most people have it in them to be brave, often heroic deeds aren't thought about, they are spur of the moment things. Rescuing someone from a burning building may be perceived as the act of a brave person but that same person could be cheating on their partner and not be brave enough to face up to it and sort it out.

 

[oaktree]

I saved myself the trouble and punch my own face making me trust myself on a level that words can never express. :s463:

 

[SahBumNimRush]

I think you should explain what integrity means to you because I'm really not sure we are talking about the same thing. Integrity is being honest, acting in a manner that is open, not being underhand, acting with honour. I'm not sure what you mean about being challenged physically etc giving you integrity, it doesn't, you can stand up for yourself, be brave and still be the biggest piece of dog's poo going. Testing your mettle isn't testing your integrity. #this is something different. You have integrity or you don't, it's having an honest nature. Testing it? That would be finding a wallet stuffed with banknotes on the street, hand it in or keep it? Given the wrong change in a shop, handing back the extra or not?

Law professor, Stephen Carter states that integrity is not only a refusal to engage in behavior that evades responsibility, but also as an understanding of different modes or styles in which discourse attempts to uncover a particular truth. Carter writes that integrity requires three steps: "discerning what is right and what is wrong; acting on what you have discerned, even at personal cost; and saying openly that you are acting on your understanding of right from wrong." He regards integrity as being distinct from honesty.

So while integrity is a "personal virtue," it's not so black and white that you either have it or you do not. Knowing right from wrong is pretty clear, but acting on what you have discerned takes more than mere integrity, it takes fortitude, bravery, etc.. . and for that matter, to some extent, so does openly defending your actions in the face of adversity. This is something that becomes easier with experience. Demonstrating integrity in a situation that does not require a physical challenge, may be easier, than acting in a situation that has consequences of physical harm. Whether that is in a sport and a self-defense situation. For example, an American football quarter back that consistently grounds the ball because he fears getting sacked.. . He knows what is right, and he may wish to act on it, but fear has overcome his ability to act on what is right. If he has never been hit previously, it may be difficult to overcome this fear. However, once he's been hit, he may realize that the physical consequences of not keeping the ball do not outweigh his choice of acting for what he believes to be right.

So, while this does not change his ability to discern right from wrong, physical experience gives him more confidence to act on that knowledge.

 

[Tez3]

Law professor, Stephen Carter states that integrity is not only a refusal to engage in behavior that evades responsibility, but also as an understanding of different modes or styles in which discourse attempts to uncover a particular truth. Carter writes that integrity requires three steps: "discerning what is right and what is wrong; acting on what you have discerned, even at personal cost; and saying openly that you are acting on your understanding of right from wrong." He regards integrity as being distinct from honesty.

So while integrity is a "personal virtue," it's not so black and white that you either have it or you do not. Knowing right from wrong is pretty clear, but acting on what you have discerned takes more than mere integrity, it takes fortitude, bravery, etc.. . and for that matter, to some extent, so does openly defending your actions in the face of adversity. This is something that becomes easier with experience. Demonstrating integrity in a situation that does not require a physical challenge, may be easier, than acting in a situation that has consequences of physical harm. Whether that is in a sport and a self-defense situation. For example, an American football quarter back that consistently grounds the ball because he fears getting sacked.. . He knows what is right, and he may wish to act on it, but fear has overcome his ability to act on what is right. If he has never been hit previously, it may be difficult to overcome this fear. However, once he's been hit, he may realize that the physical consequences of not keeping the ball do not outweigh his choice of acting for what he believes to be right.

So, while this does not change his ability to discern right from wrong, physical experience gives him more confidence to act on that knowledge.

Your definition is an American legal one and I have to disagree. Honesty and integrity are the same.


From the Oxford English Dictionary.

1 the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles: a gentleman of complete integrity

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Your definition is an American legal one and I have to disagree. Honesty and integrity are the same.


From the Oxford English Dictionary.

1 the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles: a gentleman of complete integrity

To each their own, that is the conundrum of written and spoken word. Everyone establishes their own interpretation/meaning of a word, based on experience and opinion. I don't consider honesty and integrity to be the same thing, but I can see how someone consider them equal.

If we are to use a "dictionary" definition, Merriam Webster defines integrity as: "firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility"


To me, if you have integrity, it means that you live your life in a moral and ethical way. Honesty covers lying, but integrity encompasses everything else in life.
While doing a quick google search, to see what others think about honesty vs. truth, I came upon an explanation I thought I would share.

"To be honest can simply mean to be truthful. A person can tell the truth, and yet do all sorts of devious things underhand, whilst a person with integrity will only do honest things.

Also honesty can be used in a bad way to be abusive, blunt, cruel, excessively critical, and as a pretext to undermine other people, which a person with integrity will not do, as he or she will also have a strong notion of responsibility, whilst the "honest" person can be totally irresponsible."


But I digress, this doesn't change my point, even though I seem to be failing at expressing it in a manner to which you understand. :duh:

Regardless, I think everyone who has commented on the thread is in agreement that the article is pretty crappy and inflammatory. But I continue to say that if you clean all the b.s. off it, I find some glimmer of merit, which is that experiencing a situation where you do what you believe to be right, in the face of a physically challenging conflict, improves your **** Insert whatever adjectives you believe apply, whether it be integrity, honesty, character, virtue, bravery, "real-manliness" lol, etc.. . The more experience you have at doing so, the easier it becomes to act in such a manner.

 

[Tez3]

Oh please! Real manliness? C'mon that's just rubbish. I work with and have done for 40 years with the military here and they don't exude that sort of macho BS. They are men, they know it so don't have to crow or proclaim their manliness, I'm sorry but this sort of stuff just makes me laugh.
Most people are fine, happy and honest without going off to tilt at windmills to affirm their maniliness or even their womanhood.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Oh please! Real manliness? C'mon that's just rubbish. I work with and have done for 40 years with the military here and they don't exude that sort of macho BS. They are men, they know it so don't have to crow or proclaim their manliness, I'm sorry but this sort of stuff just makes me laugh.
Most people are fine, happy and honest without going off to tilt at windmills to affirm their maniliness or even their womanhood.

HAHA! that's why I put in quotes (with the lol even!), it was sarcastic jab at the macho stance the author was spouting.

“If a man were truly brave he wouldn't have to be always proving it to himself.” -James Jones

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Regardless, I think everyone who has commented on the thread is in agreement that the article is pretty crappy and inflammatory. But I continue to say that if you clean all the b.s. off it, I find some glimmer of merit, which is that experiencing a situation where you do what you believe to be right, in the face of a physically challenging conflict, improves your **** Insert whatever adjectives you believe apply, whether it be integrity, honesty, character, virtue, bravery, "real-manliness" lol **SARCASM**, etc.. . The more experience you have at doing so, the easier it becomes to act in such a manner.

For example, we have had children in our martial arts classes who had been bullied prior to starting their martial arts training. How many of you have had similar children in your training halls? Why did they come in? What were the outcomes? Were they still bullied after they had been in class for a while? If not why?

Same could be said for adults from abusive relationships.. .

How does experiencing a physical challenge in a controlled environment (i.e. the class setting), empower you to face similar physical challenges in the real world?

It doesn't necessitate chest beating, macho-ism, or even beating the crap out of bullies.. . But it can build the confidence to act on what you feel is right, which builds character, self-worth, self-esteem, confidence, etc.. .

 

[Josh Oakley]

Wow. That was a painful article to read. It feels like I was punched right in the face by the sheer veracity of those words!


Seriously, the viewpoint is just asinine. An untrustworthy person who gets punched in the face does not become a trustworthy person. There are quite a lot of people I know who have been punched in the face that I do not trust at ALL.