Shesulsa, since you ask I'll tell you as honestly as I possibly can. It's going to be a little long and involved because I want to be clear.
I prefer longer and better formed arguments.
Weapons and what they represent - the power to take a life - are a really touchy issue for a lot of martial artists. In pretty much any aspect of the martial arts up to there a person can avoid the thornier issues. You can hit someone or lock him or spar or just about anything up to twisting his neck until it dislocates without getting too close to the bone. Almost all empty hand techniques can be dialed down to the point where they are painful or even injure people. But they don't have to come close to deadly force.
And I contend that people with the right skill set can do the same with a weapon. Not all strikes need to be deadly. Some could be permanent damage but not deadly, by default.
When weapons are involved there's almost no honest way to avoid the subject. A sword is fundamentally a tool for cutting or stabbing in ways which will kill or cripple. A gun makes holes in people. A club breaks bones. The beauty of the arrow's flight ends with it sticking out of someone. You can certainly make the practice a way of self perfection just like you can flower arranging or serving tea. The actions and the tool still represent an ugly reality and a destructive power.
You say ugly reality. I call it reality. No ugly and no beauty is involved.
Ask a bunch of smiths "If you wanted to make an anchor what are the tools you wouldn't want to be without?" None of them would say "knowledge" or "skill at the forge". Everyone knows that you need those. It's assumed. They'd say something like "a three pound cross-peen hammer, a shop anvil at least 200 pounds with no horseshoeing clip, a hold down, a straight cutting hardy, a hot set, a six pound sledge, a hold down, at least one assistant, a mandrel and a Centaur Forge's #2 swedge block". There would be all sorts of discussions about the particulars of the tools. But anyone with familiarity and some skill would give answers in that general vicinity.
As an engineer I like my pen. I also like the M1A2 tank I worked on in the early 90's, but I made the presumption that such a weapon would not be considered normal. i.e. cost and limited access and training to use.
If you ask someone "What do you like to hit with when you spar?" or "What's your favorite part of that form?" he or she will answer "the backfist" or "the heel" or "the sequence half way through that starts with a turning kick and a parry and ends with an extended cat stance". You'll never hear "The knowledge of how to hit" or "My mind, because the form is a mental construction". People who don't do a lot of hitting are happy to say "Striking's not my forte".
When it comes to forms, I find very little useful to me. I can see the beauty in the movement and in the knowledge of knowing such a sequence.
But even though I do not like them(forms), I teach them and I can discuss them.
I also have no problems with discussing actual experiences and knowing when I got hurt the most was when my intent was not there. Or when I hesitated for the sake of lessoning the degree of reality they were about the meet.
With weapons it's a whole different thing. Some will say "My martial art doesn't deal with them very much" and leave it at that. But you can count on a large fraction to throw it back by saying that their favorite weapon is something non-physical. It's almost always "knowledge", "wisdom" or "calm". It's an answer you only get when the discussion is getting close to issues of force and power, life and death and the ability to preserve the former by potentially taking the latter.
This is a coherent statement with significant points that should be acknowledged and discussed.
For those who have never been in a life or death situation with a weapon on them or with them do not know of what they speak. I understand that training will help, but is not the same as actual experience. There was a person on this board previously that made the statement that no one would know what they would do in a life and death situation. I stated that while each situation is different, that I could based upon my experiences make the statement that I would act given the situation as described. Of course no one can react when they are assassinated from a distance without their knowledge.
That's why I say it's a copout. The participants consistently pull away from the difficult and unpleasant issue by identifying something non-threatening which makes one appear to be wise and studious. The answer is a change of subject which makes the speaker appear wiser and more cerebral than the person who answers the question directly. And it is a praiseworthy personal quality rather than a tool or attribute normally associated with prevailing over another in direct conflict. One never hears equally valid but more direct answers like "ruthlessness", "tenacity", "total commitment" or "the willingness to be cut down as long as I can do the same to him".
So, can I call you on being a cop-out as well? I have asked you on this thread a question and also on another thread in the past to explain your statements. But as you refuse to reply I have to assume that it is ok for you to Cop-out but not ok for others. This I find to be contradictory and makes all your statements including your opinions subject.
As to the your last sentence, I have stated many similar things in lots of other posts.
The expletive is there because the response is perfectly designed to make one who responds directly to the question appear less wise, less advanced and overly concerned with physical things. It's a first cousin to the case of the student who asks "Can you use your art to fight?" and receives the reply "The highest form of martial art is not to fight." It may or may not be true. But it doesn't answer the question and by implication belittles both the person who asks it and another who gives a straight answer such as "yes", "no", "I don't know" or "most of the time so far".
But it is ok for you to imply that others are less wise and advanced etcetera. Once again it is ok for you and not others.
As to not fighting, I personally agree it is the best form of self defense, which is to not be involved in the first place. But I see your point that those who are not prepared to take action or to make the choice are just in some form of delusion.
So once again I ask why is it ok for you to call people out but I cannot call you out? Why are you above reproach?
Whenever I've pursued it with someone it's alwys led back to one of two basic positions.
...
Some people really have gone all the way through. They're comfortable with weapons and what they mean. The fact that what they do can cause deadly violence has been internalized and is a matter of choice, not anxiety or avoidance. They're intimately familiar and have developed real skillls to the point where the weapon and its use are understood and implied. The things that concern them are on different levels because they've already passed through the earlier stages and mastered the tools. People at that level of development are rare.
Thank you for the recognition that those skill sets are rare. Yes it could be an arrogant comment, yet, I think it is just a fact in this case. I have used and had used upon me multiple weapon types. I will state that I feel comfortable with the stick and blade, but not with the firearm. Why not the firearm? I have not been in a situation where I had a firearm and the option of using one. I have been in situations where they had firearms, and shots were fired in multiple instances. Being shot at causes one to understand what it means to react, and in many cases the reaction is after the shot is fired and if you are hit so be hit. I have never been shot though.
So thank you with the caveat I state above.
The other sort is not familiar or comfortable with the issues surrounding violence and deadly force or the tools which make such things easier. Weapons as weapons are at least somewhat alien to them. Many people at those stages are aware of it and respond accordingly. A large number is not so self aware and papers it over by avoiding the issue, usually in a radical fashion which denies the validity of the question and the value of considering it in depth. One way is to assume the language of people of the first type without having the chops.
I understand your point.
When people won't give a straight answer to something straightforward they probably aren't comfortable with or prepared for the question.
So are you uncomfortable to give me answers to questions I have asked you in the past?
And that's the truth as clearly as these very fallible eyes can see it.
And this is how I see your post(s), you get to be insulting and call others out, but do not reply to others or me when we or I have issues with your posts as you seem to have issues here.
And so the truth I see is different then you are projecting.
