Discussion in 'Ninjutsu' started by Stef97, Jul 18, 2017.
I have no regrets about people I didn’t punch.
is that coz you punched them at the time?
if i had my time again, id be far less reasonable, , people who know me don't think that is possible, but i know i could do it with a bit of effort
Nope. I don’t regret any violence I didn’t commit.
I regret the people I punched, not the people I didn’t punch.
I always want to punch one of my elementary school teacher on his face. One day I heard that he had passed away, I regret that I didn't punch him when he was still alive.
Why do I hate that elementary teacher so much? When I was in my 3rd grade in Taiwan, one day I got into a fight with my classmate. The teacher hit that boy once, he then hit me 6 times. The teacher asked me whether if I understood why. I said that I didn't. He said, "Because you are a pig". Back then Taiwanese would call a Chinese who immigrated from China to Taiwan as "pig". All my kid life was the history of "pig fought back against human's racism behavior."
Old Chinese saying said, "It's OK to wait for 3 years to execute your revenge". I assume I have waited too long.
Live your life how you need to do it. I’ve punched plenty of people. There are a few guys around here I really think are not quality human beings. i don’t want to punch them, however confident I am their training won’t help avoid such punch. In fact, I think their delusion would make it more cruel.
When someone asks how long I've been doing anything (consulting, speaking, martial arts, whatever), the answer has become almost universally too big to say, so my reply is, "About [mumble] years."
That latter supports my hypothesis (because the mass also makes the job somewhat less risky), though that may be nothing more than confirmation bias. In fact, the first statement is pretty close to my point. People tend to be drawn to what they are likely to succeed at.
I suspect that there are few people who get into that line of work (specifically bouncer) who aren't a little bit thrill-seeking and fairly risk-tolerant, and used to being physically competent. I think those are personality traits likely to be common among sport competitors, too. There will certainly be exceptions to that, but those seem likely matches. And I'd expect that - in the current MA environment - folks who match those qualities are more likely to be drawn to the more obvious sports (BJJ, MMA, maybe Judo) and less to TMA. I suspect this actually bleeds some of the likely better competitors/fighters from TMA, increasing the need for inter-style training.
Oh, and that dog doesn't seem to mind the big guy. I'm guessing she wasn't being thrown out for bad behavior.
there is just to miffle to go through line by line, so let's look at the major defintion you have just made up to suit your view.
A fight is a physical contest between two or more people, it doesn't require to be consensual to be a fight nether does it require to be in a ring or have a referee. Once you take that as a fact, then most of your points,disappear.
if someone it attacked and FIGHTS back that a,fight, ie
if someone decides to punch me and i react by punching them, its now a fight, if someone menaces me and i punch them before they can punch me, that's, a fight, if i run away , that not a fight, if i run away backwards whilst punching people who are chasing me that's a,fight.
the purposes of a fight out side of a,ring, isn't to win, there are no points and no judges to say who the winner is, its to hurt them more than they hurt you, so they a) give up b) are incapable of continuing c) won't try it again
it can be both a criminal assault and a fight, fighting back doesn't alter the law and make the attacker less guilty.
i think that just about covers your main points.
nb old timers can fight back as well, usually not very well
bouncing in the UK has a,strong tie in with organised crime, certainly before they tightens up on the certification, the bouncing contract was part of a protection racket payment, that is now less so, but all the " security" companies around this way are run either directly or under cover by people who have a reputation in the under world.
we occasionally have bouncer,wars, were one,security company attacks another to get the good contracts
That's old school.
there is quite a possibility they are doing bouncing as they have no other viable alternative employment, certainly it has the,advantage of not having to get up in the morning, getting paid for standing around looking menacing AND seems to attract a fair number of young ladies who like the,strong silent bad boy type, and you occasionally get to punch a few,drunks, what's not to like
Lovely. Sounds like feudal-era fun. Remind me not to live where you live, Jobo.
yes it can get that way, a good few years ago, one of the foot soldiers decieded to beat me up over a,disputed game of pool i made quite a mess of him and two of his friends, which resulted in a number of very serious people on the look out for me to take revenge, i invoked the family loyalty clause as one of my many cousins is married to the leader of,a rival gang, hadnt seen her in twenty years, but family is family, when the,court case came round, ,there were gangs of twenty a side in court and an armed police presence, the whole thing was resolved when most most the people who were,after me got,10 years for armed robbery,
If you are defending yourself from a criminal, or have instead chosen to willingly go into the car park and fight to settle an argument, will the courts see the difference?
Yes, they will.
By your definition yes, but my definition I am defending myself from assault. Putting "fight" in your police statement does not go down quite so well as "defending myself from assault". Yes, while it is my definition (although not just my definition btw) , the problem with using the word fight is that it causes people to mistakenly believe that the fighting skills they use in the dojo/ring are the right tools for the job when it comes to dealing with SD from non consensual criminal violence, they are not. So I believe there is an important reason to make the distinction it's not just me being pedantic for the sake of it. We understand the difference of course, but with others here you have to spell it out for them where the distinction lies.
No, it's not.
No I can't expect everyone to accept it, but I do explain why I make that definition, certain people just use the word "fight" to mean "agreeing to go out in a car park and fight to settle a disagreement" which is NOT SD, and an actual SD scenario. Certain posters here however use the same word for both without making the distinction, so you are never sure which they are referring to. They also assumes the skills set and the objective for both (and indeed the legal ramifications) are the same. They are not, I try to make the distinction so my position is made clear, even if people chose not to agree with my definition.
I am not going to be so crass as to mention names, but there are plenty of people here who argue exactly that. Unless it is men brawling in a bar or the street it is not SD, and they argue it just as vehemently as I argue it is not.
My posts are always form the point of view of UK law ( or at least as I understand it to be) I accept and understand laws are different in different locations, and people have to of course bear their own laws in mind at all times.
Of course, there always are, I was generalising to demonstrate the difference between SD and fighting.
That would have been better yes, but I was running out of time, I could be here for hours pouring over every word and comma, but eventually you get to the point where you just have to hit post and trust people to get the general jist
Yes, of course. I'm not saying it isn't one solution, I am saying however it not the best solution. Waiting until you get attacked and then hoping your MA skills are better than the other persons is not the best way to approach SD. (I'm not saying that is your approach). That is however the approach of several here who continue to argue that SD only consists of men brawling in a bar/street.
It is also, in my experience, the solution favoured by many MA instructors who try to teach SD. They give no thought to (or at best only give lip service to) the soft skills which will keep you out of danger. We have all been on a course where the instructor says "If you're being strangled this is how you escape."
Wait, what? How have I ended up in a situation where I am being strangled. You cannot (in a SD course/lesson) just skip over the the entire sequence of events that has led me to the point where I am being strangled, as there were numerous chances to avoid ending up in the position, if you know what to do.
I would absolutely agree with that as well. But you cannot for love nor money get certain people here to understand that. They know how to fight, but because their only experience of violence is fighting in the dojo/ring/street, they assume all violence is the same, and the same skills can be applied across the board. They know a triangle choke works, they have done it in the ring and in the dojo, but try to explain to them that a triangle choke is not ideal in the middle of the street and instead what they hear is "Triangle chokes don't work at all."
I think we are pretty much in agreement, save a few inconsequential details. You know ultimately what I am trying to say, it's others here who need to understand the umbrella of SD casts its shadow a lot further than the single scenario of drunken men brawling in bars.
Thanks for reply Tony, hope I have clarified things a little better than I did before
The court's view doesn't change the mechanics of the situation until afterwards. If someone attacks in a car park and you manage to disengage and gain a bit of space (but not enough to escape), the situation is markedly similar to what you'd be in if you stepped in there willingly to settle an argument.
Perhaps in some circumstances yes, but in others no. But mechanics wasn't the point I was demonstrating with this post.
The point I am making here is that if you willingly agree to fight someone in the street/bar you are not acting in SD, and so become legally responsible for the consequences, both legal and financial. If you are legally acting in SD then you are not responsible. So the courts deal with different scenarios in different ways.
Although KFW's question was flippant because he does not understand the difference, it is important to know you cannot just go round hitting people and then legally claiming the act of SD and illegally street fighting are the same just because the mechanics of a punch are the same. Also KFW, as do many, needs to understand that whilst there are some cross over skills between fighting and SD (a good punch is always a good punch) there are many skills which whilst successful in one arena are wholly unsuited to the other.
I think you have an interesting view on self defense. In many ways, I agree, but in a few key areas, I just don't. You continually emphasize that consensual violence is not self defense, but have also said that cops who engage in violence are engaging in self defense. How is it consensual on one hand and not on the other? A cop doesn't run away and in fact, often initiates the violence. How is that self defense?
Separate names with a comma.