7Likes
March 11th, 2013, 11:51 PM
Hello. I moved to a really bad part of town last year. And yesterday I tried a new route to get back home, and two guys That looked 15 years old (and I'm 13) came up to me. I say "what's your problem?" And then one of them pulled out a knife and the other punched me. So idk I just ran and escaped with only a broken arm (good thing it was my left arm)So I'm wondering what I should do if I ever get into that again? Should I fight? Is it legal to carry knives in your pocket?please help. Thanks!
That is dreadful, that you were injured in an assault, Wolf. I hope that you mend well and quickly.
To date, I have been fortunate in that I have not had to defend myself against a direct attack on my person.
You mention that you were trying a new route to get back home. What made you decide to do that?
What about the possibility of taking some self-defense courses? The objective is usually to first avoid conflict, and if unavoidable, to
defend against harm in order to get away from the dangerous situation, or so it has been explained to me.
The reason I took a different route is cuz idk I was bored and I was also not paying attention; was sending out a few emails using my iPod while I was walking.
Considering your likely experience in these matters, I will refrain from my usual advice. Scheherazade is on target saying you should take courses in self defense.
In the meantime, stay in the light as much as possible. Avoid routes that open you up to attack.
If you have a cell phone, keep it handy. I've even advised ladies, if they must walk in a questionable area, to pretend to be in a conversation on their phone as it makes attack less likely if the victim is in a good position to call for help quickly.
Unless you know how to wield a knife, I do not recommend carrying one. It can be used against you.
It also, if you panic, can be used to claim you were the aggressor causing you legal trouble.
Until you learn proper defense, avoid having to defend yourself as much as possible.
Yeah ill learn defense whatch ma call it, once my arem heals. oh and... Your usual advice? And that is...
I see. Did they get your iPod? That may have been the object of their interest.Originally Posted by xDARTHWOLFx
Which bone in your arm was broken? Is it in a cast? If so, how long do you have to keep the cast on?
My left radius was broken in a car accident years ago and I had a full cast from hand to armpit, in an 'L' so that I had to sleep on my back. It was slow to heal and I had to wear that thing for 3 months. It was a challenge, for sure.
The best fight is the one that is never fought, for that is the true measure of strategy.
You admit that you were distracted, bored, and playing with 'an object of interest' in a known 'danger zone'.
My question has to be 'What were you thinking, Dude?!"
ill answer the questions in order. They did not take my iPod. Lol you must read minds I broke my radius. Yes it is in a cast. I don't know how long it will take to heal.I see. Did they get your iPod? That may have been the object of their interest.Which bone in your arm was broken? Is it in a cast? If so, how long do you have to keep the cast on?My left radius was broken in a car accident years ago and I had a full cast from hand to armpit, in an 'L' so that I had to sleep on my back. It was slow to heal and I had to wear that thing for 3 months. It was a challenge, for sure.
I would strongly recommend kung fu- if (big if) you can find a suitable master to learn under. Which is no easy task (long story).
If not, (likely not) look up Aikido. It's defensive based and uses tactics that employs your opponents weight and movements against him but withholding damage to yourself and your opponent.
That may seem odd... But it makes it difficult to charge you with assault should he try claiming you attacked him... and saves you from fractured/bleeding knuckles.
Personally, I do not prefer Aikido (although I do know some modified violent moves using that style) but that's a personal preference given that the people I've had to fight were the sort you needed to stay down once down.
MMA is the popular rage... But I do not recommend it.
You might also check with your local YMCA for defensive courses or... local police department.
Surprisingly, there are many programs out there for those that cannot drop thousands of dollars on learning how to kick assailant butt.
I am always the one that gets accused of blaming the victim but its an avenue that must be looked at.
That being said, I do not intend to lay blame at your feet. But let's look at what youmay have been able to do that might have altered the turn of events.
When approached by individuals that COULD be perceived as a threat. Keep that perception to yourself. Address them with confidence but not aggression. One thing I notice when Neverfly and I are walking if some questionable looking person gets close to us, he acknowledges the person, by making strong eye contact, and saying something. But he does not say, "what's your problem?" Imagine if someone said that to you right off the bat. That is an aggressive statement. While you think it shows confidence, what it actually portrays is fear and hostility.
You want to show non agressive confidence. Confidence will deter an attacker, and non aggressive relaxed attitude will calm someone who may attack you out of fear that you are a danger to them.
So rather than tensing up and saying, "what's your problem?" You can maintain a calm relaxed exterior, and say very casually, "hey man how's it goin?" this acknowledges to the other person that you are aware of him. Staying relaxed and calm tells this person you are not afraid. Logically if you are not afraid, it must mean you are quite capable of defending yourself. But it also tells someone who is not planning to attack, that you also have no intention of attacking him. So he will not go into defense mode.
It could be that those boys didn't know if you were a threat or not and were prepared. When you spoke to htem aggressively they weren't taking any chances and attacked.
Or it may be that they intended to attack anyway.
Did they TRY to take anything from you? or did it seem their only motive was to hurt you?
This psychological tricks do not work all the time, and the back up would certainly be to be prepared to run or fight. But sometimes you can eliminate the threat by not appearing to be a threat yourself.
Sorry to hear about your troubles. You've received some useful advice above. Some further thoughts.
Do not even contemplate carrying a knife. Consequence - you wind up charged with murder. A knife is an offensive weapon. It is very easy to kill with one, even if this is not the intention.
Do not rule out the benefits of running away. So, in addition to self defence classes consider taking up running. Sprinting, for obvious reasons would be best. You might even make the track team.
And really, in a zone of danger be on maximum alert. Your honest description of the event suggests this could have been avoided.
I hope your arm heals fully and soon.
First, that sucks that you went through that.
Second, self-defense against a deadly weapon should always be a last resort. Your first job is to avoid being in a dangerous situation. Awareness is key above all. If you feel a situation is sketchy, your second best option is simply to get out. That usually means simply turning around and going back the way you came (assuming you came from somewhere safe). Defend yourself only if cornered.
Also, I would certainly file a police report if bodily harm was involved. That's assault and it's very serious. Plus, my insurance would rake me over the coals for a broken arm if I didn't file.
It seems that everyone has a different opinion about this...
Really? Most of the themes are common.
1. Avoid trouble if you can by being alert to dangers and acting sensibly.
2. Consider self defence lessons, but recognise that the best form of defence is usually to get away from the danger.
The only conflicting issue was Neverfly's implicit suggestion that in some circumstances carrying a knife could be a good idea. (Irresponsible and liable to moderation. i.e sometimes we do censor things.)
Heh...
How did you break your arm?
I've been in some scraps in my time, even some really heavy ones and never broke an arm. Or a leg. How did you break an arm?
I can hear Monty Python, now...
"I stab at thee."
"AH- my arm!" "You broke it!"
"Yes, my blade is.... wait... what?"
"You bloody well broke my arm!"
"It's a knife. It cuts, how could your arm break?"
"You hit it with metal and you ask how it could break?!"
No, really. How the HECK did you break your arm?
What I actually said:
"Unless you know how to wield a knife, I do not recommend carrying one. It can be used against you.
It also, if you panic, can be used to claim you were the aggressor causing you legal trouble.
Until you learn proper defense, avoid having to defend yourself as much as possible."
Learn how to read.
That, seriously, has to be the most absurd, boneheaded deliberate attempt at total distortion, reading between the lines and adding whatever flavor you wish to what someone said that I have ever seen. Ever.
Wow, J.G. I will never be able to take claims you make about what others say seriously, again.
That is the dumbest crap, ever.
I'm actually dumber for having been exposed to it.
You should be ashamed of yourself. You just lowered everyone's I.Q. for want of proper reading comprehension.
Even Futilist would facepalm over that one.
There are pictures of cats on the internet that facepalmed over less.
You wanna threaten with moderation and censorship for what you call an implicit suggestion?
Let me help you out:
I recommended that the kid does NOT try to carry a knife around. But that's just him- let's avoid your so-called implicit suggestions. I carried a knife around since I was about 6. I have three of them- usually one handy at all times.
It is called a pocket knife genius and they are as common as Mud.
You think THAT is worth censoring?
REALLY?
Shall I be jailed for owning a pocket knife, John Galt?
Go make out with an aquatic Ape.
Last edited by Neverfly; March 12th, 2013 at 07:44 AM.
That depends on which item you value more. Your possessions or your personal well-being? If your value both equally, just imagine how ridiculous it would be when a tombstone reads "He died valiantly in defense of his beloved iPod." Naturally the above only applies if the two people you've encountered were set out out to rob you. That is to say that if they aren't there merely to get a rise out of intimidating a random person they encounter on the street.That depends on whether you are confident enough to take them both on (in defense of your person & belongings) without risking serious injury to yourself.Ah, the legality of the issue finally comes into play. The answer to that too also depends on which country and state you are currently residing in. A simple google search on the laws that govern where you live ought to give you the answer you seek.
Somehow strangers know that I'm holding a conceled weapon, must be my eyes and leave me alone.
I have lived in some really bad neighborhoods too. Being a petite built white female in a very depressed part of town, you would have thought I would have had lots of problems. But I didn't for some reason. A neighbor once told me that people were afraid of me because I didn't show fear. They figured I must be crazy and had best be avoided lol. As if crazy somehow equaled superhuman. I have never carried weapons and have never needed to.(don't get me wrong, I am supportive of the right to carry concealed weapons) I have only been in a few altercations and that was when I was a teen. well unless you count my first husband who beat the hell out of me regularly. Even he is fearful of me now. Am I crazy? Who knows. I am functional and that is all that matters to me. I do not make myself a threat to others and I avoid dangerous situations. If controlled is the same as crazy, then I am guilty as charged.
Accept for a recent altercation with a severely mentally ill teen that attacked me because he didn't want to take a bath, I haven't had any actual altercations in a long time. I had a near one a few years ago. When a very violently aggressive female was in my apartment and refused to leave. She kept using racial slurs against me and I stood my ground with my hands behind my back and when she threatened to hurt me I smiled and told her to do it. She never followed through on her threats and bystanders called the police.
My first husband put me in situations where I was forced to control fear. Now when I am in a threatening situation, fear is the last thing I feel.
FEAR SEAGYPSY OR DIE! lol
LOL...
It is generally a good idea not to provoke women.
We have long memories.
We do not get 'mad'. (That is the purvey of dogs and men, as in 'mad dog' 'mad man')
We get 'even'. (Bake you chocolate brownies containing a whole package of EXLAX)
whats exlax mean?
EXLAX is a brand of laxative that resembles chocolate. The results of overindulgence of such a product would result in one needing to stay very close to the toilet for several hours.
http://images.dpchallenge.com/images...ited_89211.jpg
Maybe I should run for president. People would be afraid to not vote for me. I can see it now. Seagypsy, leader of the free world, and hell bent on world domination.
I like it.
good idea. you also could make history "the first female president" lol
LOL...a benevolent Dictatrix?
Leader of the free world and hell bent on world domination? Only a bit of an oxymoron...
I SHALL RULE THE WORLD MWAHAHAHAHA!
I will enforce freedom on people whether they like it or not. But not life. If they want to end their own lives I am cool with that. Ultimate freedom is being able to decide and choose whether or not to participate in living.LOL...a benevolent Dictatrix?
Leader of the free world and hell bent on world domination? Only a bit of an oxymoron...
so your saying you will give a 4 year old boy the chance to kill himself? niiiice... (not)
Children already have an endless list of ways to harm/kill themselves.
Parents and society invest a great deal of energy in preventing this eventuality, i.e. we 'safe-guard' our homes, we do not let children play near traffic, we investigate any youngster left unattended in a public place etc.
Highly unlikely today. The future, however, represents potential, so there may be a chance, like 1 in 6 billion plus, but mathematically a chance nonetheless.I SHALL RULE THE WORLD MWAHAHAHAHA!
Sure but I would also allow people the freedom to try and stop him if they choose to. Things have a way of working themselves out.
you would allow murderers the freedom to kill whomever they choose, and not be arrested.
sure, but they would also be at risk of being killed by those they pissed off. See it all balances out.
and what if he was the most dangerous person in the country? no one would get to kill him. he would kill everyone.
you would give freedom to terrorists to bomb the country.
maybe, what's your point? population would be down. resources wouldn't be stretched. and no one would be bored. You are underestimating the human will to survive. Most humans will go to whatever extreme is necessary to survive. up to and including killing others. at one point in time, our world had no government. And humans did what humans naturally do. we congregated into groups. there is strength in numbers. and within these groups, rules of behavior were agreed upon. People who violated rules of the group were ostracized or killed. If merely ostracized, they found a group where their opinions were common to the members of that group. each group started to develop into its own tribe, and developed their own governments and laws. each group had leaders. and the more effective or cohesive the group was, the stronger the group became. the stronger it became the bigger it became. these groups became cities, then counties, then countries.
As I said, things have a way of working themselves out. In the end, my ruling would lead to the world being just as it is today. there can be no single ruler of the world. as scheherazade pointed out, it was an oxymoron.
that was in ancient times. the human race is in such a point that almost no one knows any of the survival skills in this country. force them into this enviroment, and you have yourself a dying country of angry people. you will be killed by your own people. just be careful.
I agree. our population would drop like flies. but i don't think we would annihilate ourselves. And you also need to realize, that even though the freedom to kill would be present, the majority of people would choose not to engage in it. Even though I have nothing personal against killing, I also don't have an inclination to want to kill. It requires a lot of energy and puts one at risk of being killed themselves. It seems rather pointless and useless to kill unless given a good reason to do so.
And rules aren't exactly stopping those who have a strong desire to kill today. To stop terrorists, we are killing them. apparently laws against their behavior isn't making any difference. Normal human behavior is to go on about your life. Most humans do not sit around wishing, honestly, that they could kill and would if they were allowed. Some may, but it would become quickly apparent to them that doing so would put their own lives in danger. Most people choose not to risk their own lives unless absolutely necessary.
If simply making a behavior illegal eliminated the behavior we wouldn't need police to enforce the laws.
I'm sure someone would try to kill me. Just as many of our world leaders today have assassination attempts made. being in charge has a way of enticing others to want you dead. Power is a very tempting thing.
wait a sec... go become president so i can kill all those backstabbing lying people in my life.
lol, sure, just realize that anyone who disagrees with you would also be inclined and allowed to inflict the same judgement on you.
If diplomacy doesn't work:
1. Run away
2. If you are cornered and cannot run away, find a weapon to defend yourself with (a chair, a trashcan, a piece of wood, a brick etc - something lying around close-by).
3. If there are no available weapons, use your leg (your longest weapon) and straight-kick hard at their knee (the closest point on their body that will disable them as they approach you). Avoid trying higher kicks.
The only thing we can control, most of the time anyway, is ourselves.
Hey Darth, guess I'm a little late on this one, sorry to hear about your problems and I hope your arm recovers quickly, I think you've already been given some good advice here and gone through a baptism of fire yourself in dealing with such situations. Any criticism you may have recieved is undeserved because at your age you can't be expected to know how to or handle such situations perfectly. What you can do though is learn from it so that you arn't a victim or exploited if you ever find yourself in a similar situation.
From the sound of it these two characters were both cowards and bullies, given that they were older 2 of them and pulled a knife.
I would suggest you if do find yourself in a similar situation just confidently asking them if they have seen your brothers as if you are looking for them, then preceed to give a description 3 of 17, 18 & 20, 6' 3'' and about 19 stone. This should give such cowards something to think about. But the real point is such bullies have their minds set on preying on people they see as vunerable, so don't be vunerable, don't act like a victim, think and do act quicky. Chances are these types arn't to bright any way, so they will be easily confused. Anything you can do to let them see you don't see them as a threat undermines any sense of superiority they might have otherwise felt over you. What you don't need to do is act aggressively or threaten them in any way. Also I'm in complete agreement here with both Neverfly and John Galt, you should not in any circumstances carry around a weapon or knife. The biggest and most effective weapon you'll ever have is your brain, so just out think the morons.
And that statement clearly implies that if you do know how to carry a knife that you do recommend carrying one. Don't give me advice on how to read until you have learned to write.What I actually said:
"Unless you know how to wield a knife, I do not recommend carrying one. It can be used against you.
An interesting development taking place on this thread where Wolf asked for advice on how to deal with 'confrontations'.
Perceptually, at least, there is a potential confrontation developing between a poster and a moderator.
Any suggestions on how these two parties should proceed?
This observation is posted out of sincere curiosity about why threads tend to get hijacked.
My suggestion is that the posts pertaining to this disagreement over words and their meaning be split off so as not to detract from a valuable thread started by one of our junior members.
I have always liked the idea of a cage match subforum... something not viewable to non members and only the two individuals involved are allowed to post in a given thread. let them fight it out there.
That is actually an excellent idea, to my way of thinking, for only by eliminating the distracting input of others may the two proponents lay out their arguments in a fashion that others can evaluate for their content. As soon as any dialogue contains more than two participants, the subjective contributions quickly outnumber the objective contributions based on my participation and observation across a number of these forums.
I just want to quote this because it is by far the best thing I've read in this thread, very impressive indeed!
The credit belongs to my mentors, persons of mild demeanor, yet respected by all for their knowledge of human nature. They were peace makers and educators for the most part, only rarely pressed to the point of needing to 'engage'.I just want to quote this because it is by far the best thing I've read in this thread, very impressive indeed!
You missed the point, J.G.
If you want juvenile responses and enmity- we can play that. So that's what I gave in response. Because what you clearly said was that my statement was "irresponsible" and "worthy of moderation/censorship." What this means is that you interpreted my words to mean something quite outlandish. Let's look at why...
Because if you would like clarity- I can play that, as well.
If someone does know how to wield a knife and uses one for self defense, they are entirely within their rights. To agree with that is lawful and not irresponsible nor worthy of removing post content. This is also true for firearms. While there are those that may not choose that route; that is irrelevant to responsibility. So, by claiming that me saying that I do not recommend that a 13 year old kid arm himself with a knife, after he expressed the thought he might is somehow irresponsible and worthy of being stricken from my post- you did clearly use some imaginative interpretation. Because your interpretation says that I would recommend that he carries a knife.
Are we clear?
Good.
So, if you believe that posts that recommend that in the right circumstances, a person arms themselves properly and responsibly should be edited by moderators to remove that content- be clear and say so now. If so, we can bear in mind that your political views heavily influence how you feel censorship should be performed here.
If one never, ever needs to fight for something, then they must have done a lot of buckling under. Thing is, there are certain people in the world which diplomacy or negotiation does not work. Sometimes, you have to fight for what you believe in. To quote Alfred from one of the latest installments of the Batman Franchise: "Some men just want to see the world burn."I just want to quote this because it is by far the best thing I've read in this thread, very impressive indeed!
The best fight is the one fought honorably.
While there is, at times, honor in walking away from a fight, there are others when there is no honor in walking away. Those that would walk away allow a corruption to continue; making it harder on the rest of us that must deal with that which that person walked away from.
Agreed. There are some people that cannot be negotiated with for a number of reasons. I believe I touched on that in my response to Ascended.Originally posted by Neverfly:
...Thing is, there are certain people in the world which diplomacy or negotiation does not work....
The credit belongs to my mentors, persons of mild demeanor, yet respected by all for their knowledge of human nature. They were peace makers and educators for the most part, only rarely pressed to the point of needing to 'engage'.I just want to quote this because it is by far the best thing I've read in this thread, very impressive indeed!
The credit belongs to my mentors, persons of mild demeanor, yet respected by all for their knowledge of human nature. They were peace makers and educators for the most part, only rarely pressed to the point of needing to 'engage'.To me, the distinction is in the idea that the "best fight is the one never fought." The wording you see- while it may seem a minor quibble, is a bit strong. I could say the best fight is the one in which you win. That also comes across too strong since being the winner does not demonstrate righteousness.
"Only rarely pressed to the point of needing to engage" contradicts the idea that the best fight is the one never fought.
Because they may well have fought (rarely) for the best.
It's a nitpick, but I think it is a worthy one.
I have no qualms about sorting the fly specks from the pepper and I stand by my selection of words.The credit belongs to my mentors, persons of mild demeanor, yet respected by all for their knowledge of human nature. They were peace makers and educators for the most part, only rarely pressed to the point of needing to 'engage'.To me, the distinction is in the idea that the "best fight is the one never fought." The wording you see- while it may seem a minor quibble, is a bit strong. I could say the best fight is the one in which you win. That also comes across too strong since being the winner does not demonstrate righteousness.
"Only rarely pressed to the point of needing to engage" contradicts the idea that the best fight is the one never fought.
Because they may well have fought (rarely) for the best.
It's a nitpick, but I think it is a worthy one.
The best fight is the one that is never fought, for that is the true measure of strategy. Not all 'battles' are decided by physical superiority. If physical harm can be avoided, I still consider that to be the 'best' fight. It is not the 'only' fight, however, and for those circumstances where negotiation or retreat cannot be employed, then 'engagement' is required. Even in engagement, the objective may still be to deescalate or to retreat.
Sadly, there are some circumstances that cannot be defused, in which case the objective is to prevail and to end the battle as quickly as possible. The means will always depend upon the parameters and so I see no need to discuss such details.
Well... then I guess any further discussion is pointless, then. If the devil is in the details... such as why it is that it is no Golden Rule that one must always be deescalating. That may be your personal preference but is nothing more. It is an opinion. An opinion based upon the necessity in the details.
To not bother to discuss it means that any other opinion is simply irrelevant. I don't agree with that, either.
For example, I might vouch for elimination of a threat. That's the ultimate, really- to end a life. To always seek to diffuse things, one must stop short of the ultimate as often as possible. I mean, really- how often is it necessary to kill to diffuse a threat? You can almost always find a way of incapacitating someone without having to kill them.
But then... they are still alive to rape, pillage and murder later. I dunno- but eliminating the threat seems quite viable to me.
As you suggested, you don't necessarily want to discuss those details. Well, ok, then. That is fine... Maybe you should not say "the best way is to" type sentences, then.
I have not said "the best way is to". The order and placement of words is important to the meaning.Well... then I guess any further discussion is pointless, then. If the devil is in the details... such as why it is that it is no Golden Rule that one must always be deescalating. That may be your personal preference but is nothing more. It is an opinion. An opinion based upon the necessity in the details.
To not bother to discuss it means that any other opinion is simply irrelevant. I don't agree with that, either.
For example, I might vouch for elimination of a threat. That's the ultimate, really- to end a life. To always seek to diffuse things, one must stop short of the ultimate as often as possible. I mean, really- how often is it necessary to kill to diffuse a threat? You can almost always find a way of incapacitating someone without having to kill them.
But then... they are still alive to rape, pillage and murder later. I dunno- but eliminating the threat seems quite viable to me.
As you suggested, you don't necessarily want to discuss those details. Well, ok, then. That is fine... Maybe you should not say "the best way is to" type sentences, then.
The above quote is indeed my opinion and that of my mentors.The best fight is the one that is never fought, for that is the true measure of strategy.
I do not think it is appropriate to discuss the details of 'eliminating the threat' when that is not my preferred strategy. Likewise, if 'engagement' is required, I do not think this is the appropriate thread (or forum) for such a discussion. I would likely seek a discussion board on a forum for self defense for such a conversation. Perhaps I should have made that distinction more clearly.
Ok, so a bunch of opinion as to "best" and "True measure." Sounds definite. Very certain. Yet, if it is opinion, sounds subjective, too.
Which is it?
You state it as a certainty with the words "best" and "true measure" and then say it is inappropriate to discuss concepts of human psyche, evolution, biological responses and logical morality on a science forum? Utter hogwash. You said, "true measure."
These are your words. You, yourself, pointed out the importance of sticking to the words that you chose. You, yourself, said you stand by the words you chose.
If you do not wish to discuss it, that is fine. I merely pointed out the fallacy in stating a certainty, claiming it as opinion, then refusing to discuss the details.
You are not obligated to argue your position, even though you made the claim and the position... but the topic is quite appropriate on a science forum.
What is inappropriate is you're making of certain claims, those claims being unsupported and then an admitted opinion.
This is illegal in many administrations and irresponsible in all. I find your promotion of this notion evil, reprehensible, immoral and disgusting. I have no further interest in interfacing with someone capable of such ethically despicable behaviour. Please construct your own offensive put-down and apply it to yourself.
Absolute and utter nonsense. John Galt, are you actually claiming that in most countries, the ownership of knives is illegal? If so- that is incorrect.
Are you saying that it is illegal to use a knife in Self Defense? I know you are in the USA... If so, incorrect.
Are you saying it is illegal to carry a knife? If so, you are incorrect.
You are clearly tilting at windmills.
And bordering heavily on being dishonest.
Here's the breakdown-
You must be saying one of two things:
1.) That you believe it is irresponsible and worthy of eliminating words from a members post for them to say it's proper to be armed in self defense.
2.) That you believe I said the opposite of what I said to Wolf.
It must be one of those two. And both are total nonsense. You're essentially admitting that you believe moderators should censor people based on the moderators own personal politically extremist views.
Oh, I am evil, now. Evil is something that exists, right?
Are you saying it is immoral that some people are armed in self defense? Or are they supposed to just lay there and TAKE IT?
The only disgust here is your words, John Galt. You picked this fight, so finish what you start.
I told the kid I do NOT recommend that he does carry a knife (as he considered doing), even though I carried a knife at his age. It was quite normal when I was his age. Everyone carried a knife.
I gave my reasons why. For him, in his situation, it would probably do more harm than good. That doesn't apply to everyone, however, and your blanket reactions are nonsense.
If you don't like arguing it out, then I suggest you back up off of me with your offensive manner.
Telling people they need to be censored and that they are evil and such... You gotta be kidding me.
In my opinion, carrying a weapon would only make the situation worse. If you have a knife, you'll be inclined to use it if you're frightened. Let's say you do carry a knife, what happens if you draw yours, at which point a would-be assailant draws his/her own - or even worse a gun? Carrying a weapon for self defense, especially at your age, is just a whole can of worms that isn't worth opening.
I'd recommend fleeing any situation that doesn't feel right. There's no shame in that. But, if you're caught in a situation where fleeing is not an option? Do what they say. Give them your wallet, give them whatever. A piece of leather and a few paper notes are not worth the risk of fighting - especially when you have so many years ahead of you. I've lived in many rough neighbourhoods (I still live in one), and the one thing I've learnt is that playing it safe is the way to go. A college kid got shot dead a few streets from my Apartment. Why? Because a gang of fifteen year-olds with guns were trying to car-jack him, and he tried peeling out of there - I believe that if he complied, he'd still be alive.
Neverfly you have been antagonistic from the outset. It does not surprise me that you promote the use of violence to fight violence. And yes I consider that to be evil.
Yes, I happen to be in the US today, I shall be in the UK in a week or so and The Emirates a couple of weeks after that. I move around. Knife possession in public is illegal in the UK.
I've had it with you. Basically go stew in your self arrogant juices. I find you offensive, egocentric and dangerous.
End of.
All opinions are subjective.Ok, so a bunch of opinion as to "best" and "True measure." Sounds definite. Very certain. Yet, if it is opinion, sounds subjective, too.
Which is it?
You state it as a certainty with the words "best" and "true measure" and then say it is inappropriate to discuss concepts of human psyche, evolution, biological responses and logical morality on a science forum? Utter hogwash. You said, "true measure."
These are your words. You, yourself, pointed out the importance of sticking to the words that you chose. You, yourself, said you stand by the words you chose.
If you do not wish to discuss it, that is fine. I merely pointed out the fallacy in stating a certainty, claiming it as opinion, then refusing to discuss the details.
You are not obligated to argue your position, even though you made the claim and the position... but the topic is quite appropriate on a science forum.
What is inappropriate is you're making of certain claims, those claims being unsupported and then an admitted opinion.
I have stated my position quite plainly.
How you care to interpret my words, I have no control over, therefore I have no interest in engaging further with you in this dialogue.
I prefer, instead, to take advantage of a delightful Yukon evening, the early evening sun shining in a cloudless blue sky.
Fare thee well and perhaps another will come along to engage you in wordplay.
Oh, whatever. So now, you are claiming I was antagonizing you when you re-interpreted my words in an improper manner.
Well, that is your opinion. It is just as evil to say someone should answer a violent attack by not defending themselves. It suggests that people should just take abuse and that is just as reprehensible.
So you really have zero cause to claim that people should be censored for disagreeing with you. That, too, is totally disgusting.
Ad homs. Again, whatever. Pot, meet kettle. The majority of your posts are harsh and antagonistic, in any event.
Such as "best" and "true measure"?
Get over it.
Yes, go away and leave it to others to support the wording they choose and pretend that somehow, it is my fault that you made specifically worded claims, then backed out on it. Funny, the cranks get called out pretty heavily for doing that...
I really do not care if you don't wish to deal with someone having the audacity to disagree with you or point out flaws in your wording.
But claiming it's inappropriate is as dishonest as John Galt claims, above.
I actually support neverfly's comment on the knife. I've used a knife once to deter what I believe would have certainly been a very traumatizing and painful event for me, "20ish year old druggy that recently robbed my house and I met him on the road", he began walking towards me prior to my grasping of an 6" straight blade. However, in most instances, you do not want to be carrying a knife. Especially if you're 13 years old and can't properly wield one. Your attackers sound like typical bullies to me, in all honesty. They had nothing to gain, and they obviously weren't threatened.
To reiterate, I recommended that DarthWolf not carry a knife- in spite of the jousting at windmills going on in this thread.
My apologies for misconstruing your message then.
im going to go train on knife combat. and im gonna use a HUGE GINORMUS WICKED LOOKING KNIFE! of course, my arm has to heal first.
oh wait a sec... i Wont get a knife. ill just be an emo and make people agraid to touch me! mwahahaha!
Perhaps you missed this lesson from the original Raiders Of The Lost Ark...im going to go train on knife combat. and im gonna use a HUGE GINORMUS WICKED LOOKING KNIFE! of course, my arm has to heal first
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anEuw8F8cpE
You know.... a better option than a knife is a can of mace spray. Or a tazer, but the mace spray is cheaper and more effective.
You get multiple benefits over a knife.
1) - It's non-lethal, so not likely you kill anyone nor be accused of killing them.
2) - It's useable from a short distance away.
3) - You don't have to aim precisely. Just get a little bit on their face and you'll incapacitate most attackers.
4) - As I said... it's cheap, and easy to carry around.
5) - You can easily take down a person who knows how to fight a lot better than you do.
If you also feel like carrying a knife and killing them once they're on the ground, I wouldn't object. I rather dislike bullies and see their death as a benefit to humanity.
But... realistically.... don't try to use a knife as your primary defense option against anybody who actually knows how to fight unless you know how to fight better than they do.
Moderator Comment: I have no idea about the other mods, but I have no intention of allowing ayone to advise a teenager on how to kill someone. Consequently I have deleted the first part of Kojax's post. And he has earned himself a one week suspension. If you have a problem with that, tough,
As for mace, the same is true only more so. You need to immediately spray them before they have time to react or even think about what's going on.
-----
Also another possibility if you're far enough away when you see them, and proficient with your cell phone camera is to take their picture and immediately send it somewhere..... then let them know you already took their picture.
Most criminals (but not all..) are not dumb enough to attack someone after their picture has been emailed.
Last edited by John Galt; March 13th, 2013 at 05:42 PM.
@Darthwolf, there are some good suggestions in this thread and some dumb ones. I hope you can distinguish between them. If you wish to discuss this further with any of the mod team please pm them.
Thread Locked.
| « Oscar Pistorius | Social Perceptions to Sexual Assault - SEEKING PARTICIPANTS FOR DISSERTATION » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
