Results 1 to 10 of 48
The unique thing about this grass-roots movement to fight against the tide of ridiculous garbage in the Martial Arts is the diverse nature of the people who have come together here on Bullshido.<table class="image" align=left cellpadding=3 >
<caption align="bottom"><font size="-2">From the article:
<i>Phil's martialism equates to offering moral justification of illegal actions.</i>
<tr><td><img src="http://www.bullshido.com/images/articles/phil-doublestrike.jpg" height=165 width=240></td></tr>
</table>One such person is Supporting Member Arahoushi, who happens to hold a bachelor's degree in Philosophy. In his first article for Bullshido, he uses his expertise to pick apart the flaws and inconsistencies in the concept of "Martialism" as described by one of this community's favorite punching bags, Phil Elmore.
Here's a quip from the article:
Thus, all of Phil's posturing that rational egoism supports his philosophy of "martialism" is flawed as well. Phil's martialism states that any amount ("total aggression") of force required to preserve one's own well-being or that of others is justified. This is not so. Most laws state that force must be proportional to the force used against you. If Smith were to come up to me and attempt to punch me, and I respond by pulling out my folding knife and cutting his throat, I will be hauled in to jail on charges of assault with a deadly weapon, if not murder. If Smith attempts to gut me with a knife, and I respond with my own knife, I am still not "in the clear," so to speak, with the law. I have to prove that I could not have safely fled the scene, that the use of deadly force was my only option to preserve my life. Phil's martialism equates to offering moral justification of illegal actions.
You can read the full article here Don't forget to add your thoughts on Arahoushi's analysis for posterity.