Street Fight Truths?

[eternaldarkness]

id rather get clowned than hospitalized because because I couldn’t fight off multiple attackers.

But what country doesn’t have people carrying weapons? Or do you mean a country where law abiding citizens don’t carry weapons?

Also I nearly went to jail when I got into a fight with multiple attackers. We have very strict laws about self defence over here.

 

[rmongler]

You will be in serious shit in Australia if your caught with a knife not to mention a gun. We don't have concealed carry licenses, and your right, law abiding citizens don't carry weapons over here.

Also I nearly went to jail when I got into a fight with multiple attackers. We have very strict laws about self defence over here.

What does it mean if you are heavily restricted in defending yourself or property? If you are punished or discouraged by various means from trying to move away from bad areas? If even having groups or social organisms of friends or other akin people to benefit from numbers when useful or necessary is something people don't even think of as a possibility?

One can't help but get the sense that members of your incumbent ruling classes are warmed and comforted at night by the thought of you (and/or folk like you) being killed.

Of course not to throw stones; they're not too different in character in America either for that matter. That lingering vestiges of ideas like 'right to bear arms' yet persist is just a function perhaps that the pedestrians they oversee have tended to be lot more ornery about having unreasonable instincts for self-preservation. A bit more difficult to manage you understand (though initiatives for replacement with easier marks have gone in fits and stops over intervening decades).

 

[JohnPJones]

You will be in serious shit in Australia if your caught with a knife not to mention a gun. We don't have concealed carry licenses, and your right, law abiding citizens don't carry weapons over here.

thats the difference between being a citizen and a subject.

What else could be expected from a country that lost a war to emus?

 

[JohnPJones]

So you're disagreeing with your own point earlier then ?

what point do you think I’m disagreeing with?

 

[My2Cents]

That's the thing about these sorts of conversations; they're almost always predicated on some sort of disadvantageous preconditions that you 'have' to be in.

Why would i ever not have my weapon?

Why would i ever not have backup?

Why would i ever allow myself into such a situation where i could reasonably expect to need such things but don't have them anyways for some reason?

Lol. You never go on vacation with your wife/gf?

 

[rmongler]

Lol. You never go on vacation with your wife/gf?

Sure, to very nice places.

What kind of vacation would it be if i had to stress out about high probabilities of danger?

 

[My2Cents]

Sure, to very nice places.

What kind of vacation would it be if i had to stress out about high probabilities of danger?

A fight can happen anywhere... even in those “nice places” you are talking about.

But you would be helpless without your weapon and backup?

All in all it seems like you stress out about these kind of things anyway

 

[rmongler]

A fight can happen anywhere... even in those “nice places” you are talking about.

But you would be helpless without your weapon and backup?

All in all it seems like you stress out about these kind of things anyway

I think you're projecting your own paranoia; it was you who first brought up the possibility of getting jumped in Mr. Rodger's Neighborhood to begin with not me lol.

 

[My2Cents]

I think you're projecting your own paranoia; it's you who is first bringing up the possibility of getting jumped in Mr. Rodger's Neighborhood not me lol.

Lol no, you said you always have backup and a weapon at hand and I didn’t believe you ( and I was right since you are going on vacation defenseless).

I am the opposite of paranoid, I never have a weapon on me and I travel all over the world (also to what some might consider less nice places) and almost never felt unsafe. Most of the time if you act scared you get in trouble

 

[rmongler]

Lol no, you said you always have backup and a weapon at hand and I didn’t believe you ( and I was right since you are going on vacation defenseless).

I am the opposite of paranoid, I never have a weapon on me and I travel all over the world (also to what some might consider less nice places) and almost never felt unsafe. Most of the time if you act scared you get in trouble

This is exactly what im talking about with unspoken assumptions in these conversations; everyone is talking past each other.

Why would i ever not give myself advantages, assuming i am going to be in situations where i can expect danger?

Whenever someone opens their mouth in a conversation about 'self-defense', you can guarantee, they are thinking about a certain situation in particular, the particulars of which situation they are basing their statement on.

And when someone else opens their mouth to disagree with the first person, you can guarantee, they are thinking about a different situation in their minds, the particulars of which situation they are basing their statement on.

The problem with conversations about 'self-defense' is that hardly anyone actually verbalizes (or worse, are even explicitly consciously of) what unspoken assumptions they are operating under. More specifically, hardly anyone talks about self-defense in terms of what that would actually mean and what would actually apply to your own particular circumstances or the circumstances of whoever you're talking with.

When people simply speak of 'self-defense' in merely abstract terms, the results can only be incoherent and inconclusive; people imagining different fragments of different scenarios that would apply to one statement but not others, or inappropriately taking some measure that might be appropriate in some contexts, and trying to apply it to all contexts.

If you are interested in how two unarmed combatants might best overcome each other, then you don't need a 'self defense' guru in the first place, you go to a gym and start training.

If you are interested in how to deal with multiple attackers, then you won't find an answer in the gym, because the answer is have multiple guys yourself too.

(Well, you might actually still find that answer at the gym too, if you make your gang there).

So often, people tend to predicate conversations about self-defense in terms of 'the worst case scenario'. Unspoken assumption: why is everyone in these hypotheticals arbitrarily disadvantaged? No mention of how unreasonable it would be to not give yourself a given advantage, to ensure you are in more of a position of power, or how unreasonable it would be to even find yourself in a given situation in the first place, due to choices or behavior.

 

[My2Cents]

This is exactly what im talking about with unspoken assumptions in these conversations; everyone is talking past each other.

Why would i ever not give myself advantages, assuming i am going to be in situations where i can expect danger?

Whenever someone opens their mouth in a conversation about 'self-defense', you can guarantee, they are thinking about a certain situation in particular, the particulars of which situation they are basing their statement on.

And when someone else opens their mouth to disagree with the first person, you can guarantee, they are thinking about a different situation in their minds, the particulars of which situation they are basing their statement on.

The problem with conversations about 'self-defense' is that hardly anyone actually verbalizes (or worse, are even explicitly consciously of) what unspoken assumptions they are operating under. More specifically, hardly anyone talks about self-defense in terms of what that would actually mean and what would actually apply to your own particular circumstances or the circumstances of whoever you're talking with.

When people simply speak of 'self-defense' in merely abstract terms, the results can only be incoherent and inconclusive; people imagining different fragments of different scenarios that would apply to one statement but not others, or inappropriately trying apply measures that might be appropriate in some contexts, to all contexts.

If you are interested in how two unarmed combatants might best overcome each other, then you don't need a 'self defense' guru in the first place, you go to a gym and start training.

What the hell are you talking about? What unspoken assumptions did I make? I was merely questioning your always armed/backup statement (which I found ridiculous) and I was right...

 

[rmongler]

What the hell are you talking about? What unspoken assumptions did I make? I was merely questioning your always armed/backup statement and I was right...

So it all goes over your head. Lets put it in other words then.


Why would anyone ask about self-defense?

Presumably, because they are worried about danger to life and limb.

Why would anyone worry about danger to life and limb?

Presumably, because they expect to be in situations where danger to life and limb is more probable.

Why would anyone expect to be in situations where danger to life and limb is more probable?

Presumably, because it concerns their job, or because the area in general they live in is dangerous, or because they expect to be in a dangerous place for some time for some reason or other.

If it's simply because people in the area in question in general are dangerous, then the more philosophical answer would simply be, 'not be there'.

If it's because of your job (such as security, or corrections, or police), or because you can't move for whatever reason, or because you have to go for whatever reason (such as business), then it would be reasonable for you or more broadly the group you are a part of to do things like the things mentioned in previous posts (be well numbered, be well armed, be well trained, and et cetera and so on).

 

[My2Cents]

So it all goes over your head. Lets put it in other words then.


Why would anyone ask about self-defense?

Presumably, because they are worried about danger to life and limb.

Why would anyone worry about danger to life and limb?

Presumably, because they expect to be in situations where danger to life and limb is more probable.

Why would anyone expect to be in situations where danger to life and limb is more probable?

Presumably, because it concerns their job, or because the area in general they live in is dangerous, or because they expect to be in a dangerous place for some time for some reason or other.

If it's simply because people in the area in question in general are dangerous, then the more philosophical answer would simply be, 'not be there'.

If it's because of your job (such as security, or corrections, or police), or because you can't move for whatever reason, or because you have to go for whatever reason (such as business), then it would be reasonable for you or more broadly the group you are a part of to do things like the things mentioned in previous posts (be well numbered, be well armed, be well trained, and et cetera and so on).

Lol over my head?? You presume to much buddy and I am glad i Think on a whole other level then you do.

You have a great one and don’t forget to holster/buddy up for the big bad world out there!!!!

 

[rmongler]

Lol over my head?? You presume to much buddy and I am glad i Think on a whole other level then you do.

You have a great one and don’t forget to holster/buddy up for the big bad world out there!!!!

You're a mental midget.

 

[My2Cents]

You're a mental midget.

That’s okay, your entitled to your opinion just like I am to mine scared little boy in a grown mans body

 

[rmongler]

That’s okay, your entitled to your opinion just like I am to mine scared little boy in a grown mans body

Unless you grow two braincells don't reply to me.

 

[My2Cents]

Unless you grow two braincells don't reply to me.

Its a free country and I so happen to do what I like. But please no more hypothetical walls of text. Ty

 

[rmongler]

Its a free country and I so happen to do what I like. But please no more hypothetical walls of text. Ty

>'free' country

>can't even own funs.

Lmao @ur life.

 

[Adnan Adil]

This is exactly what im talking about with unspoken assumptions in these conversations; everyone is talking past each other.

Why would i ever not give myself advantages, assuming i am going to be in situations where i can expect danger?

Whenever someone opens their mouth in a conversation about 'self-defense', you can guarantee, they are thinking about a certain situation in particular, the particulars of which situation they are basing their statement on.

And when someone else opens their mouth to disagree with the first person, you can guarantee, they are thinking about a different situation in their minds, the particulars of which situation they are basing their statement on.

The problem with conversations about 'self-defense' is that hardly anyone actually verbalizes (or worse, are even explicitly consciously of) what unspoken assumptions they are operating under. More specifically, hardly anyone talks about self-defense in terms of what that would actually mean and what would actually apply to your own particular circumstances or the circumstances of whoever you're talking with.

When people simply speak of 'self-defense' in merely abstract terms, the results can only be incoherent and inconclusive; people imagining different fragments of different scenarios that would apply to one statement but not others, or inappropriately trying apply measures that might be appropriate in some contexts, to all contexts.

If you are interested in how two unarmed combatants might best overcome each other, then you don't need a 'self defense' guru in the first place, you go to a gym and start training.

If you are worried about dealing with multiple attackers, you won't find an answer in the gym, because the answer is have multiple guys yourself too.

(Well, you might actually still find that answer at the gym too, if you make your gang there).

So often, people tend to predicate conversations about self-defense in terms of 'the worst case scenario'. Unspoken assumption: why is everyone in these hypotheticals arbitrarily disadvantaged? No mention of how unreasonable it would be to not give yourself a given advantage, to ensure you are in more of a position of power, or how unreasonable it would be to even find yourself in a given situation in the first place, due to choices or behavior.

Sounds good! I agree that many people may think about different situations and after this they engage each other in long arguing. Different things work for different goals.

 

[Jack Stevonovich]

Lol. You never go on vacation with your wife/gf?

No, they are so worried about being caught by a rival gang they themselves have joined a gang.