All is not well in the UK's Socialist Utopia

[Gawdzilla Sama]

MrJonno, you seem to think the country is going to devolve into a bunch of Kung-fu fighting mobs. And I don't know where you're getting that from, other than shear contrarianness.

[MrJonno]

LOL - now you're mincing words. If we call it something different, you'll like it

It's what I said in the first place, its about how its marketed and how people think. A citizen prime responsibility is to avoid conflict, if and only if they can't do this should other measures even be considered. Even for a policeman the amount of force they can use is meant to be minimum that is required

If someone wants to learn karate so they can keep fit and for sport fine, if they happen to use it in self defence fine it becomes a problem when they learn karate for that in the first place.

I was looking at doing some karate lessons and in their brochure that made it very clear that they do not encourage the use of anything learned outside the karate arena and you have to sign a contract when you begin the course promising not to

[MrJonno]

MrJonno, you seem to think the country is going to devolve into a bunch of Kung-fu fighting mobs. And I don't know where you're getting that from, other than shear contrarianness.

Nah nothing that elegant, punch ups are rarely the choreographed stuff you see on tv

[PsychoSerenity]

There is something to be said for looking prepared. If you were a mugger, who would you target? This guy:



Or this guy:

Since the second one is clearly just make-up and props, I'd be searching through the stuff he's left in his dressing room. Plus, I bet the first one is secretly bad-ass and going to try take over the world one day. Look at his evil little beard. You don't want to be his enemy.

[MrJonno]

I have actually wandered around London looking like that a bit strangely the police stopped me and asked me what I was doing, weapons were made of rubber of course and Emily Watson was not around

[Gawdzilla Sama]

MrJonno, you seem to think the country is going to devolve into a bunch of Kung-fu fighting mobs. And I don't know where you're getting that from, other than shear contrarianness.

Nah nothing that elegant, punch ups are rarely the choreographed stuff you see on tv

So you do expect that self-defense classes will result in open warfare on the streets? If so, why?

[Coito ergo sum]

LOL - now you're mincing words. If we call it something different, you'll like it

It's what I said in the first place, its about how its marketed and how people think. A citizen prime responsibility is to avoid conflict, if and only if they can't do this should other measures even be considered. Even for a policeman the amount of force they can use is meant to be minimum that is required

That has absolutely nothing to do with being prepared. I want my kid to know how defend herself not in order to attack people or confront them, but in order to defend herself.

If someone wants to learn karate so they can keep fit and for sport fine, if they happen to use it in self defence fine it becomes a problem when they learn karate for that in the first place.

Why? There is nothing wrong with self-defense. So, there is nothing wrong with training to be better at self-defense. If they use karate for self-defense, that's great. They defended themselves. Awesome. Nothing but applause for that.

I was looking at doing some karate lessons and in their brochure that made it very clear that they do not encourage the use of anything learned outside the karate arena and you have to sign a contract when you begin the course promising not to

Of course, because they don't want to be held liable for what you do if you haul off and break somebody's neck. It's like saying that advice one is given is for informational purposes only and not to be used. Big deal. It would be pretty dumb to think that you can learn martial arts and then not use it "outside the arena." That's like knowing how to box and not using your boxing skills in a fight.

[MrJonno]

That's like knowing how to box and not using your boxing skills in a fight.

Well a boxer using his fists in a fight is going to be considered a lot more seriously than anyone else making the boxer in some ways pretty vulnerable

[MrJonno]

That has absolutely nothing to do with being prepared. I want my kid to know how defend herself not in order to attack people or confront them, but in order to defend herself.

And you really think there is a difference?, well I do know the answer to that you genuinely believe it.

It reminds me of people who support the death penalty and ask me how would you feel if your loved ones were murdered and the person who did it was allowed to live, with the obvious reply being if your child was the murderer would you still want them to be executed. A few people say yes but most will reply with my child wouldn't be a murderer

[Sean Hayden]

It seems there are always people willing to build fences around the things they fear that are much further out from those things than any reasonable person should accept. If the thing is sex, then it is not enough for us to learn about it and respect it. Someone will tell us it's necessary to not even look at another person sexually. Someone else will say to not even look at a person unless they belong to you; keep your eyes on the ground.

Also, who are they always addressing? Who are all these "others"? Something that has been bothering me in Plato's Republic seems relevant here. It's Socrates' insistence at times that other people need a particular style of upbringing that he himself did not have, because they, unlike him, would become x, y, z. -horseshit

[Coito ergo sum]

That's like knowing how to box and not using your boxing skills in a fight.

Well a boxer using his fists in a fight is going to be considered a lot more seriously than anyone else making the boxer in some ways pretty vulnerable

You're dancing around.

Your suggestion was that it's o.k. to train for martial arts for sport, but not to defend oneself and that they warn you not to use the skills "outside the arena." The boxing example was raised to show that it is silly to think that one can compartmentalize and simply "not use" one's skills if one is attacked. A boxer has an advantage in a fight because he knows how to throw a punch, and has generally trained to increase the force of her punches.

Your view of it is that a skilled boxer is actually more vulnerable because people who know he's a boxer will make sure their more careful and try harder when they fight her. That's pretty silly too, since most of the time a mugger or a rapist won't know she (or he) is trained in boxing ahead of time.

[Coito ergo sum]

That has absolutely nothing to do with being prepared. I want my kid to know how defend herself not in order to attack people or confront them, but in order to defend herself.

And you really think there is a difference?, well I do know the answer to that you genuinely believe it.

There is definitely a difference. The idea that "defending" is the same thing as "attacking or confronting" ignores common usage of the English language and common sense.

It reminds me of people who support the death penalty and ask me how would you feel if your loved ones were murdered and the person who did it was allowed to live, with the obvious reply being if your child was the murderer would you still want them to be executed. A few people say yes but most will reply with my child wouldn't be a murderer

Well, I'm against the death penalty, although I will admit that if I were certain someone killed my wife or daughter, I would want to kill them myself. But, that's the heat of emotion talking there. As a matter of broad public policy, I think the death penalty is not effective, overly expensive, unfairly administered, and doesn't do much to deter crime (except recidivism of the original offender). I don't subscribe to life for life justice.

I've never heard anyone address the issue you just raised with "my child wouldn't be a murderer" so they're not worried about their child being executed if they commit murder. That sounds pretty stupid.

[MrJonno]

There is definitely a difference. The idea that "defending" is the same thing as "attacking or confronting" ignores common usage of the English language and common sense.

The English language ignores the fact that they very easily become the same thing when put into practice, leave defence to sports or war and keep it out civilian life

[Coito ergo sum]

There is definitely a difference. The idea that "defending" is the same thing as "attacking or confronting" ignores common usage of the English language and common sense.

The English language ignores the fact that they very easily become the same thing when put into practice, leave defence to sports or war and keep it out civilian life

So you are against self-defense, then. You were a little squirmy about that a little ways back in this thread.

Your druthers then is for people who are attacked to not defend themselves then? Dial the police, if possible or otherwise just hope they survive, play dead, lay there like a slug and wait it out?

[Beatsong]

So they deliberately pit "repeal gun laws" against five other incredibly stupid and/or irrelevant policies. Well done

I'm not sure I understand -- the British people were able to be resounding against the first few, but by the time they got to the hand gun law repeal they were so tuckered out from all that disagreeing that they just had to agree to be in favor of repeal of the gun ban?

Here's the actual telegraph poll:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... e-now.html

The options are presented as radio buttons, of which you can choose one and only one (if you have chosen one and then choose a different one, it unmarks the radio button for your first choice). Which is why, of course, the percentages reported add up to one hundred percent.

So yes, the poll is basically saying "84% of Britons would consider repealing the handgun laws somewhat less batshit insane than five of the other most batshit insane things we could think of." And that's not even getting into the fact that it's a "poll" conducted online (with what mechanism to avoid duplicate voting, exactly?) with no connection to any established polling organisation with any credibility, among the readership of one of the most right wing newspapers in the country.

And this is supposed to mean "84% of Britons" want the handgun law repealed. Give me a fucking break. This is just Seth at his most shamelessly moronic, deciding that the bottom of the barrel isn't quite low enough and he'd better scrape that away and see what he can find.

Fucking hilarious.