Martial arts as defense on the streets

[pdg]

We don't have to accept everyone's personal definition, but if we want to have effective communications we have to acknowledge that the dictionary definition isn't complete for all situations. So if we're in doubt, we need a common working definition to share for a discussion.

Going off the available evidence of this particular discussion, we're far from having a common working definition in this instance...

Part of the reason for this disparity is that the huge variety of legal definitions are actually clouding the colloquial usage that we'd be much more likely to (almost) universally accept.

In essence, self defence is easy to understand - it's the action of defending oneself. Simple.

But then as soon as you start a discussion on the subject in detail, problems arise with whether you're defending yourself or defending someone else, whether it's actually classifiable as self defence if you didn't comply with the duty to retreat and/or stand your ground (and then an argument about those duties not applying everywhere), whether it's transformed into a consensual fight because you hit back/hit first, how fast and how far you are able to run and whether your assailant is armed with a cheeky cabernet.

I can't see a way to move this forward myself.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

And for those who enter the conversation at a later time, will be seriously confused concerning the actual subject at hand. This is why we have definitions that are universal, so that everyone will understand. Deviating from those definitions, is what cause confusion.

 

[pdg]

And for those who enter the conversation at a later time, will be seriously confused concerning the actual subject at hand. This is why we have definitions that are universal, so that everyone will understand. Deviating from those definitions, is what cause confusion.

But a universal definition is something we don't have here.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

But a universal definition is something we don't have here.

To many individual self proclaimed definitions cause this very problem and is why I do not fable in individual definitions.

 

[jobo]

So, that definition takes precedence over the definition used in any other jurisdiction? If we each use the legal definition in our jurisdiction, how can we ever converse over the topic? By the approach you're attempting to use, there are literally at least dozens of variations of the definition. (And that's without even considering common usage, which doesn't restrict itself to the legal definition.)

no that definition takes precedance e for me it's the only one that is applicable, you need to find the legal definition in your jurisdiction, then we all have to realise that conversations with others in a different jurisdiction on what should be included in the definition of self defence is pointless, as each has the only definition they are ever likely to need.

if you share a jurisdiction, then discussions are equally pointless, as it's already defined in legal text and a quick google will put the matter to bed for ever

 

[drop bear]

Except that you've ENTIRELY missed my point (as you usually do, I believe on purpose). My point isn't that others must use or even accept my definition. I provide mine so they know what I meant. I happily use others' definitions when discussing something they said (because the way they intended the word is what's important in that context).

So, give me an exact definition of self-defense that everyone could use, with clear boundaries. (For your statements to make sense, you'll have to find it defined in a dictionary, so that others would be able to look it up when the term is used.)

Except nobody knows what you mean because the term is vague.

And then you use that vagueness to claim you didn't mean or say what you said.

 

[drop bear]

I never said we need to refer to it in those terms. But it is useful to be able to talk about the concept overall. Not having a term for that is like trying to talk about that sport one game at a time. You can dissect each play, each period, and each game. But you can't talk bigger than that, because you can't really talk about the sport without giving it a name. You can't talk about disagreements over what really it is, because you can't refer to it.

Without a term, it becomes more vague.

Oh. You never said that?

Here we go again.

You asked the question. How do we create an umbrella term that defines self defense that everyone can agree to.

And the answer is we don't.

We define the specifics and the umbrella term takes care of itself.

We still have self defense as a concept. We just don't compete to claim ownership of it.

Would you punch in self defence?
It is a stupid question. There are specific circumstances to punch there are ones that might be better not to.

Adding self defense makes that concept awkward. But people use it for its marketing value. As it sounds definitive.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

..

We need the actual definition to completely understand the discussion. Agreeing on a different definition, will change the concept of the subject, effectively removing the reason for even having a discussion. At least on my end.

Okay, so which definition? That's the question. And what do you do when the definition doesn't clearly define the edges of the concept? Or do you just ignore that and hope everyone has the same edges in mind?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Going off the available evidence of this particular discussion, we're far from having a common working definition in this instance...

Part of the reason for this disparity is that the huge variety of legal definitions are actually clouding the colloquial usage that we'd be much more likely to (almost) universally accept.

In essence, self defence is easy to understand - it's the action of defending oneself. Simple.

But then as soon as you start a discussion on the subject in detail, problems arise with whether you're defending yourself or defending someone else, whether it's actually classifiable as self defence if you didn't comply with the duty to retreat and/or stand your ground (and then an argument about those duties not applying everywhere), whether it's transformed into a consensual fight because you hit back/hit first, how fast and how far you are able to run and whether your assailant is armed with a cheeky cabernet.

I can't see a way to move this forward myself.

We can come up with a common definition, as long as we all recognize nobody needs to "win". So, if you and I start talking about the topic and realize we aren't using the same definition, I can accept yours (let's assume you used the word first), or we could take a moment to figure out what's common about our use of the term. Or we can decide it's not really important and just choose a definition that fits the discussion at hand.

With self-defense, this happens a lot. The definition I use is closer to the legal definition, and so more limited than the definition many people use (which includes avoidance, alarm systems, etc.). In discussion, I can usually figure out pretty quickly if they're including (in that discussion) those other areas. If so, I simply use their definition of self-defense for that discussion, so we aren't talking at cross-purposes.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And for those who enter the conversation at a later time, will be seriously confused concerning the actual subject at hand. This is why we have definitions that are universal, so that everyone will understand. Deviating from those definitions, is what cause confusion.

You keep saying that. Yet you haven't addressed any of the issues inherent in that approach. You don't seem to really want to discuss this, yet you keep tossing in comments that only reiterate an approach I've already pointed out has limitations.

Not sure what your goal is here.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no that definition takes precedance e for me it's the only one that is applicable, you need to find the legal definition in your jurisdiction, then we all have to realise that conversations with others in a different jurisdiction on what should be included in the definition of self defence is pointless, as each has the only definition they are ever likely to need.

if you share a jurisdiction, then discussions are equally pointless, as it's already defined in legal text and a quick google will put the matter to bed for ever

So, you just don't talk about it with anyone who lives somewhere else? No overlapping concepts can ever be discussed in that context?

And all of this ignores that self-defense isn't only a legal concept (as an affirmative defense). That's one use of the word.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Except nobody knows what you mean because the term is vague.

And then you use that vagueness to claim you didn't mean or say what you said.

No. You just like to say people do that. It's your way of baiting people, trying to get them away from actual discussion into your attempts at verbal traps. It's not terribly productive, especially when you continue to prosecute it over several threads.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Oh. You never said that?

Here we go again.

You asked the question. How do we create an umbrella term that defines self defense that everyone can agree to.

And the answer is we don't.

We define the specifics and the umbrella term takes care of itself.

We still have self defense as a concept. We just don't compete to claim ownership of it.

Would you punch in self defence?
It is a stupid question. There are specific circumstances to punch there are ones that might be better not to.

Adding self defense makes that concept awkward. But people use it for its marketing value. As it sounds definitive.

I said we never had to use specific terms. See, you're once again trying to make weasling out of your poor communication skills.

So, you think we don't lose anything by never talking about responding to non-consensual physical violence outside of agreed-upon fights, except insofar as we discuss them individually...never as an overall group? Really?

 

[Deleted member 34973]

You keep saying that. Yet you haven't addressed any of the issues inherent in that approach. You don't seem to really want to discuss this, yet you keep tossing in comments that only reiterate an approach I've already pointed out has limitations.

Not sure what your goal is here.

No, I have given my reasons, you just do not want to accept that I do not care about personal definitions. I told you why, it causes confusion. It is something that allows a person to be right all the time

Yes, I have lost interest in that type of discussion.

 

[pdg]

We can come up with a common definition, as long as we all recognize nobody needs to "win". So, if you and I start talking about the topic and realize we aren't using the same definition, I can accept yours (let's assume you used the word first), or we could take a moment to figure out what's common about our use of the term. Or we can decide it's not really important and just choose a definition that fits the discussion at hand.

That's all well and good if it's you and I having a discussion, we reach an accord as to where the boundaries are.

And it can easily accommodate a few more participants, as long as their predefined boundaries aren't too dissimilar to ours (or one or all of us will move sufficiently to make it work - that happens a lot).

But in an open forum it gets difficult, because Bob says our boundaries are far too narrow for what he can/does do - so we could expand and continue.

But then Frank says that's no good because 80% of the discussion is stuff he can't (/won't) use, and Darryl backs him up.

Then Stuart says Frank and Bob are stupid and don't know what they're talking about, Laura jumps in to defend Bob, Bob says he can fight his own arguments, Tarquin says he's a vegan and we all end up arguing about bacon.

Not that I'm saying it's not entertaining, just that I've come to accept that most subject matter (especially transatlantic) needs to have a wide interpretation...

 

[jobo]

So, you just don't talk about it with anyone who lives somewhere else? No overlapping concepts can ever be discussed in that context?

And all of this ignores that self-defense isn't only a legal concept (as an affirmative defense). That's one use of the word.

you can talk about it, just don't keep pushing your home sdpun definition on ppeople it is only a legal concept,if it wasn't for the legal concept of unlawful assault there wouldn't be any need for the concept of self defence, it would just be called fighting

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No, I have given my reasons, you just do not want to accept that I do not care about personal definitions. I told you why, it causes confusion. It is something that allows a person to be right all the time

Yes, I have lost interest in that type of discussion.

Yes, you've given reasons, and acted as if there are no inherent issues in that approach. You've not been actually discussing anything from the beginning.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's all well and good if it's you and I having a discussion, we reach an accord as to where the boundaries are.

And it can easily accommodate a few more participants, as long as their predefined boundaries aren't too dissimilar to ours (or one or all of us will move sufficiently to make it work - that happens a lot).

But in an open forum it gets difficult, because Bob says our boundaries are far too narrow for what he can/does do - so we could expand and continue.

But then Frank says that's no good because 80% of the discussion is stuff he can't (/won't) use, and Darryl backs him up.

Then Stuart says Frank and Bob are stupid and don't know what they're talking about, Laura jumps in to defend Bob, Bob says he can fight his own arguments, Tarquin says he's a vegan and we all end up arguing about bacon.

Not that I'm saying it's not entertaining, just that I've come to accept that most subject matter (especially transatlantic) needs to have a wide interpretation...

Well said.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

I think that when people are using, logic, reasoning and critical thinking, they misunderstand the concept concerning definitions.

The definitions, that are agreed upon, are meant to have their start in known and accepted definitions. A person, is not meant to come up with what they individually think it means.

This is where dictionaries, a legal definitions are important.

This is why legal definitions are extremely important, the courts thedecide if what you have done, follows the lawful definitions and that is why, the legal definitions seem vague. It is the circumstance related to the legal definition that are important.

I see this mistake made by a people when it comes to an agreement in defining words or expressions.

Doing it this way, (what it means to you even if agreed upon by the other party) gives one of the parties an upper hand in the debate.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

you can talk about it, just don't keep pushing your home sdpun definition on ppeople it is only a legal concept,if it wasn't for the legal concept of unlawful assault there wouldn't be any need for the concept of self defence, it would just be called fighting

I don't push my definitions. You actually ought to know that. I generally use common-usage definitions. When mine differs from someone else's, I generally let them know (to acknowledge any confusion it may have created) then work with theirs, unless there's a reason theirs doesn't fit the topic as it is being discussed (as when you often step into a discussion and insist others must use the definition of a word as you prefer it, when a different usage is already working well for those invovled).