...
Sport vs. Street
- Thread starter FriedRice
- Start date
Self-defense is a concept. Unless we use the legal term (then we have to decide which law), it's going to have fuzzy edges. I'm more than willing to admit that there are points where it's tough to define the difference between self-defense and something else. I can't make it not be that way. I try to put my own views out there as plainly as I can, so folks can understand where I'm coming from. If they have a different view of it, that's fine. It doesn't make it impossible to discuss. It just means the people discussing it have to agree on some points (choose a common definition, etc.) for it to become a meaningful discussion.
The legal definition is based upon the concept. If you want to use the legal definition, that's fine. Of course, you'll have to decide which legal definition you wish to use, because the legal concept is fairly universal, but the language and limits aren't.
Not so obviously. They don't appear to be making rational decisions in the video. They might be, but it doesn't appear that way. People whose emotions take over often make decisions they, themselves, cannot defend.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,532
- Reaction score
- 8,205
So all the way back at the start of this was there are a whole bunch of fights where people don't die
Why bother making the distinction in the first place?
I don't know why others make the distinction. To me, it's part ethics, part strategy. The strategy part is understanding the difference between a fight (stay in until you win or lose) and defense (if you have a chance to escape, generally, you should take it). The ethics part is more personal, but it ties to the idea of avoiding unnecessary risk, too (a principle of self-protection). If someone offers violence, it's generally better to decline than to engage, if that's an option. So, if someone loses their mind in anger (the "emotional hijacking" I referenced in another thread) and wants me to go out back with them, I won't go. I simply won't agree to the fight. Of course, we could probably come up with a circumstance where agreeing to the fight might be acceptable, but it wouldn't normally be so.
If we don't make a distinction between what is self-defense and what isn't, we put all fighting on the same moral plane. I think most people would agree that there's nothing wrong with fighting to defend oneself from an attack, and that any injuries you receive while doing so are the "fault" of the attacker. I think most people would also agree that agreeing to fight someone who just wants to hurt you because they are mad at you is probably a bad idea, and that any injuries you sustain in that situation are at least partly your own responsibility.
One of the same. Well skills are just natural movements. IE David Beckham and that right foot. He had to hone the technique, but the skill was already there.
Martial_Kumite
Green Belt
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
- Messages
- 134
- Reaction score
- 47
Umm... I am confused on what you are asking?
Er no, but the kick no doubt would be ballet quality.
No its not. Skils can be honed. You have them or you don't. Its what makes us non robotic
No its not. Skils can be honed. You have them or you don't. Its what makes us non robotic
Skills can be honed, after those skills are learned.
Beckham had to learn how to kick a soccer ball he was not born with that knowledge.
His natural ability might of made it easier to learn but it still had to be learned.
Technique is the method in which you do something
Skill is how well you do that technique
Natural abilities enhance the skills that we have
CB that is a very good answer. Sorry though, I don't subscribe to that, yeah.
Anyway, natural ability doesn't have to be learnt. Just ever so contradicting of the message
Martial_Kumite
Green Belt
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
- Messages
- 134
- Reaction score
- 47
Anyway, natural ability doesn't have to be learnt. Just ever so contradicting of the message
Wouldn't it be well to say that a natural skill needed to be "awakened"? For instance, If some one has a natural ability to read/play music, they first have to be exposed to music/playing music. So it might be less that you need to "learn" a natural ability, and more that you have to realise it exists.
If you are talking about reality...I would agree
Yes. That makes a lot of sense.
OP
FriedRice
Master Black Belt
- Thread Starter
- #218
They're defending themselves from attacks. What's considered rational to someone who's not used to violence is usually different than those who, ie. lives in the ghetto and must use violence often to survive daily life. The last thing that someone wants to be in the ghetto, is the B, that runs away all the time.
