How Effective Is Bodybuilding For Self Defence?

[Steve]

i said, i'm not a mean person. if i could survive being attacked by making friends with my attacker i would. but i'd be dead.

This is interesting. I don't think I'd ever want to make friends with my attacker. I have no interest in that, and personally, I don't understand why anyone would want to be friends with someone who attacks them? As I said, I would prefer to avoid ruthless people altogether, if given the choice.

i am not a fighter. i don't look for trouble. but when my life or the life of someone i love are in danger, i am not at all concerned with being 'a nice guy'.

that is why i originally said 'meanness' is a subject worhty of ponder, i was implying that one must consider the brutal reality of having to use damaging technique, and understanding what it takes to call that out of yourself at a moment's notice.

hate is not the same thing. a lion does not hate a gazelle. a fox does not hate a rabbit. nature employs savage cruelty all the time, yet i seriously doubt any creature other than human beings have ever experienced hate.

thank you for bringing up that distinction, it is important.

You're welcome.

 

[tim po]

This is interesting. I don't think I'd ever want to make friends with my attacker. I have no interest in that, and personally, I don't understand why anyone would want to be friends with someone who attacks them? As I said, I would prefer to avoid ruthless people altogether, if given the choice.

it was metaphor, illustrating a point. don't take me too literally. all i am saying is that i am as a nice a guy as i can be to any and everyone who will let me. if i was naturally mean, never would have thought about it! but i am not. so i cultivated it, in my martial path. it is a trained response, like the rest of my skillset of self-defense.

 

[tim po]

it was metaphor, illustrating a point. don't take me too literally. all i am saying is that i am as a nice a guy as i can be to any and everyone who will let me. if i was naturally mean, never would have thought about it! but i am not. so i cultivated it, in my martial path. it is a trained response, like the rest of my skillset of self-defense.

 

[Steve]

that is an interesting sentence. i think i know what you mean, but right and wrong are subjective, and do change from one circumstance to another. and i do reserve the right to make that choice in any circumstance where i consider my life threatened by another creature. we all must. no one can do it for us.

Okay. We're starting to move into a bit of a fuzzy area here, but what you're talking about is a pretty loosey-goosey form of ethical relativism, which I'm not too keen on.

I'll just say that circumstances can force us to do things we would prefer not to, based on conflicting values (e.g., we may be forced to harm another in order to protect our family). But this idea of ruthlessness speaks to values and intent. If you haven't given some thought to what your actual values are, I highly recommend it. Just as an exercise, write down what things you value and then prioritize them. Imagine that they are in direct conflict... which way would you go?

So, for example, let's say you value kindness, empathy, integrity, and lawfulness (as a short list). What would you do if you had to choose between being honest and being kind? Do you value integrity over empathy? Try to think about how you've actually acted in the past... think of real life situations where you've had to make a choice.

If nothing else, this will help you in the future to be more mindful and deliberate, and will actually help you be more decisive in a crisis. In my opinion.

 

[tim po]

we are getting off-topic. my original comment was in the context of where the conversation was at the moment: toughness was supported as being more important than 'strength' (as cultivated in a gym) that is how i understood it, and my meaning was that imo, meanness is more important than muscle-and perhaps as important as toughness as defined.

 

[tim po]

Okay. We're starting to move into a bit of a fuzzy area here, but what you're talking about is a pretty loosey-goosey form of ethical relativism, which I'm not too keen on.

I'll just say that circumstances can force us to do things we would prefer not to, based on conflicting values (e.g., we may be forced to harm another in order to protect our family). But this idea of ruthlessness speaks to values and intent. If you haven't given some thought to what your actual values are, I highly recommend it. Just as an exercise, write down what things you value and then prioritize them. Imagine that they are in direct conflict... which way would you go?

So, for example, let's say you value kindness, empathy, integrity, and lawfulness (as a short list). What would you do if you had to choose between being honest and being kind? Do you value integrity over empathy? Try to think about how you've actually acted in the past... think of real life situations where you've had to make a choice.

If nothing else, this will help you in the future to be more mindful and deliberate, and will actually help you be more decisive in a crisis. In my opinion.

 

[Steve]

we are getting off-topic. my original comment was in the context of where the conversation was at the moment: toughness was supported as being more important than 'strength' (as cultivated in a gym) that is how i understood it, and my meaning was that imo, meanness is more important than muscle-and perhaps as important as toughness as defined.

Sure. I was commenting on ruthlessness and meanness. I don't know how that came up, but I don't think it's necessary or all that helpful. Folks started defending ruthlessness, so I tried to explain what I mean.

So, if you're saying that some folks are mean (or ruthless), and that's an important thing to keep in mind, I agree. If you're saying, as others did, that in order to be effective, we need to figure out how to cultivate meanness and ruthlessness in ourselves, I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

[Steve]

ethical relativism?... i do not believe in belief, i do not accept absolute standards, i am perfectly secure in my intent to do no unnecessary harm, and in my ability to determine when i have no choice but to cause harm. that said, when that time comes, i am prepared to fight to the last as ferociously as any animal should, but humans tend to fool themselves into being afraid to do so, you know, ethics, religious qualms, all that good stuff that civilized community is founded on..in theory. but i'm talking only about the moment when i think of nothing else but neutralizing the threat to my person, and i am not afraid to be mean, comes down to it.

Look, whatever works for you. My personal opinion is that ethics and "all that good stuff" aren't things that should be casually disregarded in a crisis... as I said before, I personally find that problematic, and people who do so are unpredictable and to be handled with care.

 

[tim po]

Sure. I was commenting on ruthlessness and meanness. I don't know how that came up, but I don't think it's necessary or all that helpful. Folks started defending ruthlessness, so I tried to explain what I mean.

So, if you're saying that some folks are mean (or ruthless), and that's an important thing to keep in mind, I agree. If you're saying, as others did, that in order to be effective, we need to figure out how to cultivate meanness and ruthlessness in ourselves, I wholeheartedly disagree.

no, i think i am the one who brought this up, and am therefore defending it is a mindset worthy of training...but perhaps the scope of the word 'ruthless' is what is in question,, i may just not understand what it means in this sense. it's good to hear conflicting opinions, that is how ideas find equilibrium. it is a sensitive subject, and perhaps one i have taken too much for granted in introducing without explainantion.

i'll try one more time: i do not advocate cultivating meanness and ruthlessness in ourselves. i do advocate cultivating meanness and ruthlessness in our approach to learning effective self-defense. i also do advocate becoming a highly skilled martial artist who doesn't need to, but for the rest of us... yeah.

 

[tim po]

no, i think i am the one who brought this up, and am therefore defending it is a mindset worthy of training...but perhaps the scope of the word 'ruthless' is what is in question,, i may just not understand what it means in this sense. it's good to hear conflicting opinions, that is how ideas find equilibrium. it is a sensitive subject, and perhaps one i have taken too much for granted in introducing without explainantion.

i'll try one more time: i do not advocate cultivating meanness and ruthlessness in ourselves. i do advocate cultivating meanness and ruthlessness in our approach to learning effective self-defense. i also do advocate becoming a highly skilled martial artist who doesn't need to, but for the rest of us... yeah.

i see no direct correlation to ruthless self defense skills and lacking/flexible ethics. unless you are one who would use such ruthlessness for personal gain, but is that not the essence of all evil?

 

[Steve]

i do not advocate cultivating meanness and ruthlessness in ourselves.

i do advocate cultivating meanness and ruthlessness in our approach to learning effective self-defense

I don't see the difference between these two things.

i see no direct correlation to ruthless self defense skills and lacking/flexible ethics. unless you are one who would use such ruthlessness for personal gain, but is that not the essence of all evil?

Sure, I get that. My personal opinion is that ruthlessness is undesirable all on its own. Whether someone is acting ruthlessly for personal gain or not is beside the point. That said, if you are willing to act ruthlessly in order to defend yourself, how is self defense not personal gain?

 

[tim po]

I don't see the difference between these two things.


Sure, I get that. My personal opinion is that ruthlessness is undesirable all on its own. Whether someone is acting ruthlessly for personal gain or not is beside the point. That said, if you are willing to act ruthlessly in order to defend yourself, how is self defense not personal gain?

hm. kinda seems like your trying pretty hard to perpetuate this semantic misinterpretat

I don't see the difference between these two things.


Sure, I get that. My personal opinion is that ruthlessness is undesirable all on its own. Whether someone is acting ruthlessly for personal gain or not is beside the point. That said, if you are willing to act ruthlessly in order to defend yourself, how is self defense not personal gain?

ion.
ruthlessness, to me, means 'getting it done by whatever means necessary', and when training for mortal self-defense, i see no reason not to be ruthless as i understand it, in what you are willing to do to survive. if it is what you need to do to survive. the discussion has been had about legal ramifications already. if ruthless means something else entirely to you, please explain. i don't see how it is 'intrinsically immoral'.

ok, survival IS personal gain, i meant along the lines of proactively going after others in a ruthless manner, for personal gain. this does not mean it has to be how you regard people in everyday life, or that you do not value compassion and forgiveness. remember i'm not talking about fighting now, or competition, though ruthlessness is a winning trait in those arenas, it can be at the expense of sportsmanship and disrespectful to your opponent. i take for granted i guess that martial artists understand the razor's edge between power and corruption, the edge we walk on when we study these skills.

 

[tim po]

you know what i would describe as 'ruthless'? nature. in nature, all living beings struggle for survival every moment of every day. the end is usually rather violent, for most of them, but nature has equipped every life form to deal with that in it's own way. it's actually why we go into 'shock'. the cat who turns back on the coyote and fights like a demon from hell makes it home. the one that keeps running doesn't. was the first cat wrong for fighting so ruthlessly? (we all know cats are immoral) should the cat 'feel bad' if the coyote looses an eye? should he have shown mercy?. despite our illusions, we are not separate from the natural order, and when attacked visciously this point is never more clear. and i say, let 'm have it! don't worry whether or not they will ever play the violin again.

 

[Steve]

hm. kinda seems like your trying pretty hard to perpetuate this semantic misinterpretat


ion.

I'm really not. Just trying to be clear. I'm happy to let it go when you are.

ruthlessness, to me, means 'getting it done by whatever means necessary', and when training for mortal self-defense, i see no reason not to be ruthless as i understand it, in what you are willing to do to survive. if it is what you need to do to survive. the discussion has been had about legal ramifications already. if ruthless means something else entirely to you, please explain. i don't see how it is 'intrinsically immoral'.

Okay. I have a more conventional understanding of what ruthless means. No worries. Just to be clear, I don't think the trade off here is ruthless or death.

ok, survival IS personal gain, i meant along the lines of proactively going after others in a ruthless manner, for personal gain. this does not mean it has to be how you regard people in everyday life, or that you do not value compassion and forgiveness. remember i'm not talking about fighting now, or competition, though ruthlessness is a winning trait in those arenas, it can be at the expense of sportsmanship and disrespectful to your opponent. i take for granted i guess that martial artists understand the razor's edge between power and corruption, the edge we walk on when we study these skills.

Sure, intrinsically immoral is too strong. I got a little carried away. But not by much. Ruthlessness to me suggests a lack of empathy, lack of compassion, or lack of mercy. I don't think you need to be merciless to do what you need to do. I don't think you need to forego compassion to successfully defend yourself.

Let me try a completely different approach. I have giant dogs. A St. Bernard and a Great Pyrenees. I have had a lot of animals over the years, and have had to take more than a few in to be put to sleep, when their quality of life was just too bad. I didn't like it, but I didn't have to somehow become ruthless in order to do it. It doesn't mean I shied away from it. I just did what I had to do, and what I believed was the right thing to do in that moment.

Why does self defense have to be any different? I think the idea of having to become something I'm not (i.e. ruthless or mean) in order to defend myself is just inherently problematic. Giant red flags for me. And the idea of training other people to get to a place where they are voluntarily becoming something so inherently negative as ruthlessness just isn't a good idea, in my opinion.

I hope this is all clear. I'm just sharing what I think. As I've said many times, if you don't agree, I'm totally okay with that.

 

[tim po]

I'm really not. Just trying to be clear. I'm happy to let it go when you are.



Okay. I have a more conventional understanding of what ruthless means. No worries. Just to be clear, I don't think the trade off here is ruthless or death.


Sure, intrinsically immoral is too strong. I got a little carried away. But not by much. Ruthlessness to me suggests a lack of empathy, lack of compassion, or lack of mercy. I don't think you need to be merciless to do what you need to do. I don't think you need to forego compassion to successfully defend yourself.

Let me try a completely different approach. I have giant dogs. A St. Bernard and a Great Pyrenees. I have had a lot of animals over the years, and have had to take more than a few in to be put to sleep, when their quality of life was just too bad. I didn't like it, but I didn't have to somehow become ruthless in order to do it. It doesn't mean I shied away from it. I just did what I had to do, and what I believed was the right thing to do in that moment.

Why does self defense have to be any different? I think the idea of having to become something I'm not (i.e. ruthless or mean) in order to defend myself is just inherently problematic. Giant red flags for me. And the idea of training other people to get to a place where they are voluntarily becoming something so inherently negative as ruthlessness just isn't a good idea, in my opinion.

I hope this is all clear. I'm just sharing what I think. As I've said many times, if you don't agree, I'm totally okay with that.

i hear ya, and i don't need to be right. but i don't like being misunderstood. and of course, now i'm hearing the cobra kai mantra in my head....

but i have defended my right to trust my own moral compass, and stated that i always seek to do no more then what is absolutely necessary. but that does not imply doing less than is necessary, and perhaps it is just my experience that has lead me to see things the way i do, but if doing something truly horrible to someone is what i have to do to stop them? not losing any sleep.

i said what i said because some people need to give themselves this kind of permission, to understand that it actually is ok to train to attack someone with extreme prejudice in the name of defending your life. a moment of hesitation can mean life or death, and mental preparation is important. sorry if the word struck a nerve, and it is a slippery slope with some nasty sh*t at the bottom. meanness doesn't imply mercilessness, but mercilessness doesn't imply malicious intent by itself. it can and usually does mean that, but can also be used to imply a lack of hesitation to cause injury when necessary. being merciful is better, but you're skills have to be too.

 

[Unkogami]

9 times out of 10, people talk about being "mean" or "ruthless" as an attempt to imagine they could pull a "grandma lifts car off her grandson" magically overcoming their weaknesses and other shortcomings "when I have to." We are as strong as we are strong, we are as fast as we are fast, we can do what we can do. Little imagination games are for kids.

 

[tim po]

9 times out of ten, eh? thank you for sharing this profound observation.

don't believe anyone has mentioned superpowers. this is a very natural innate power we have within us, and training to deploy it as needed is part of the way i approach self-defense, no need to be squeamish about it.

i am not telling anyone what they should do, just perspective from my own path.

 

[Unkogami]

...this is a very natural innate power we have within us, and training to deploy it as needed is part of the way i approach self-defense....

If someone else is stronger, faster, smarter, or just better than you, your "innate power" won't change that. Imagining otherwise is kids stuff.

 

[tim po]

If someone else is stronger, faster, smarter, or just better than you, your "innate power" won't change that. Imagining otherwise is kids stuff.

truly you have a dizzying acumen, sir.

it is precisely because we may be attacked by someone bigger, stronger and faster than us that we train in the first place. it is because we are also likely to be attacked by someone who is also meaner than us, that i cultivate the ability to get 'mean' myself in response. if i was a mean person to begin with, i would not have to. but then, i'd be the one looking for a victim. it is not about being invincible, it is about leveling the playing field. the one who has already committed to the attack has an edge, they are mentally prepared. if we are still busy in our minds worrying about whether or not our actions are righteous, they win. animals think faster than humans. use your animal brain. it's much faster.

 

[Unkogami]

.... it is because we are also likely to be attacked by someone who is also meaner than us, that i cultivate the ability to get 'mean' myself in response.....

How? There is only one real way to 'train' such a thing, and it's not in a 'dojo.'