Martial Arts on Penn and Teller's Bulls**t!

**pokeroo** · Posted On: 7/26/2010 9:32pm

@piwiman, martial arts are for when running or surrendering are not options.

Since when is Judo expensive?

Also the cost benefit ratio for whether or not its worth it to take martial arts varies for each individual. For example, maybe self defense is not as important for a 350 lb linebacker than it is for a 100 lb woman. It may also vary depending on how athletic you are, what kind of neighborhood you live in (e.g. how likely it is you'll be attacked), and how old you are. For me I'm athletic enough that I think I could integrate martial arts well, big enough for them to give me some advantage in an attack, but not so big that I would never be a target.

**piwiman** · Posted On: 7/26/2010 9:54pm

@pokeroo it's not that cheap either (at least in my country), but that's besides the point. I had my doubts while watching the episode (thinking they were using extreme examples to prove their point), but in the end I think they where trying to say it's unlikely to be in a situation where you don't have any other option but to fight, and even if you could "win" it might have negative legal consecuences. So most of the time, the best option might be to avoid the fight or if necesary, it's cheaper, easier and safer to have a gun.

**DARPAChief** · Posted On: 7/26/2010 10:55pm

Originally Posted by piwiman

@pokeroo it's not that cheap either (at least in my country), but that's besides the point.

Actually that's very much to the point. The overarching beef everyone here has with this show is how it asserts its various conclusions without doing the requisite homework to make it anything more than a televised shouting match. You haven't done your homework either.

I had my doubts while watching the episode (thinking they were using extreme examples to prove their point), but in the end I think they where trying to say it's unlikely to be in a situation where you don't have any other option but to fight, and even if you could "win" it might have negative legal consecuences. So most of the time, the best option might be to avoid the fight or if necesary, it's cheaper, easier and safer to have a gun.

Again, you have an opinion but if you have a goal here beyond simply sharing it you need to back it up with something. Furthermore, if you go to the trouble of reading the comments made before you you'll find most everyone agrees that P&T present valid alternatives to conflict but where the main objections lie is in their rash mistreatment of the subject matter. When these alternatives aren't valid armed/unarmed conflict can ensue and that is the place for an MA skillset. It happens; check out the links in my prior post if you haven't decided to ignore them.

**piwiman** · Posted On: 7/27/2010 9:58am

Originally Posted by DARPAChief

Again, you have an opinion but if you have a goal here beyond simply sharing it you need to back it up with something.

No, I don't have any other goal. Do you? Just saying what I think their point was. Training a martial art demands money, time and efort by the way.

**DARPAChief** · Posted On: 7/28/2010 12:03am

Originally Posted by piwiman

No, I don't have any other goal. Do you? Just saying what I think their point was. Training a martial art demands money, time and efort by the way.

Programs like this that put on the airs of critical thinking that are just about as anti-intellectual as the buffoons they poke every episode; if that isn't motivation to be vocal and raise some objections I don't know what is.

From our exchange so far it's evident you either do not value intellectual honesty as some of us do or you do not detect what exactly it is I'm objecting to. Given the absence of such content in your responses I'm going to assume the latter, to which end I can only recommend you look a little deeper into the topic.

**piwiman** · Posted On: 7/28/2010 1:14am

Stop smelling your own farts for a moment and realize I see nothing of value in your responses, since the one about judo, which is why this "exchange" and my responses are empty as well. By the way, Judo is a good example, but like I said in judo the sport, competition, excercise, might be more the focus than self defense. Self defense would be secondary.

About the links you presented, I probably have read those threads in the past, so I know the stories. But what they present is anecdotical evidence at best. If you want to get all intellectual and scientific on me then at least present statistically significant evidence or studies before you claim to be presenting evidence.

I'm not going to debate you. But if you disagree with a point I make, explaining why you disagree is enough, no need to be an asshole (Am I using the word correctly?) about it. I was at least trying to address the issues you raised in my response.

**DARPAChief** · Posted On: 7/28/2010 9:31am

On the one hand you don't want to "debate", but on the other you want "evidence". And now I'm an asshole? Your lingual arsenal is almost as terrifying as your indecisiveness. No one has dared to call me on fart smelling since at least grade 5 and quite frankly, I'm in pain. ...anyway, take it easy. I'm finished with this.

**st-w** · Posted On: 8/26/2010 9:55am

Originally Posted by piwiman

The idea behind the episode was that martial arts as self defense is bullshit.

...an idea, which -in and of itself- is bullshit.

Let's examine a pattern that is readily visible in nature: Unless fighting for it's life, an animal attacking will more readily flee a target that defends.

If a mountain lion attacks you, what are you going to do? Ball up and cry? You might as well try to get your lips puckered up onto your ring and kiss your ass goodbye.

No. You fight. Why? Because a predator can find an easier target, and you stand a better probability of not getting killed. If you can prove to the predator that you are a threat, you stand a better chance of overcoming the situation. Wild animals do not have hospitals and homes in which to retreat if they receive a critical injury, and a simple broken bone can be life threatening to a wild animal. So unless the animal is starving, or crazy, it's not going to attack something that is putting [the animal] in so much danger. The scenarios that will break down my analogy include when the animal feels as if it's life or survival is threatened. For instance, a mother defending her young will fight like crazy, and a different strategy must be used. On a basic level, attacking animals will flee if there is a threat.

~

Another example from the streets is 'security.' If you live in an urban center and ride a motorcycle or a bicycle, then you know that you must lock up your bike. It's that simple, otherwise it will get jacked. When a thief approaches an area where bikes are parked, the first thing he looks for is which one he wants, the second thing he looks for is which are secured. Do you think a thief is going to waste time cutting through a metal chain when there's another model right next to it - free for the taking? Martial arts (any self defense school) should teach you to use your fists, your feet, and your mind. Knowing those things, how to use them and when are akin to a padlock on the bicycle of your body. Thieves do not want to go to jail, and will not risk getting caught on a target that is harder to break.

~

Muggers, pickpockets, and the sort are akin to wild animals. They are desperate. They need money the same way the wild animal needs food. If you break their face open, it may cost them more to go to a hospital. And they risk getting caught, which, is also an undesired outcome. Yes, you may encounter a madman, or someone very desperate. As with the wild animal analogy above, it is best to know the situation, and act accordingly. What is accordingly?

If an animal or person makes a non-predator attack, "play dead." Meaning, if they feel cornered, or "life threatened," you must remove this threat, not increase it.

If an animal or person makes a predator attack, fight back. Meaning, if they are attacking you as food, they are hungry. Send them off for an easier target.

~~~

At least they didn't say we should be a society of pussies who just roll over at the first sign of danger. They DID sort of advocate carrying guns as self defense. As I stated in my last post, they picked the worst possible examples of each style presented.

**Permalost** · Posted On: 8/26/2010 10:31am

Originally Posted by piwiman

even if you could "win" it might have negative legal consecuences. So most of the time, the best option might be to avoid the fight or if necesary, it's cheaper, easier and safer to have a gun.

Wait, so you don't want negative legal consequences during an altercation, so you'd rather shoot someone than, say, pinning them down or punching them? Guns are the king of negative legal consequences, especially if a bullet hits a bystander or if you shot someone who wasn't similarly armed and able to kill you. Also, it is not safer to use a gun at close quarters if you are not proficient at fighting skills, because now you've introduced a deadly weapon that you aren't trained to retain, and you're now in a fight at the highest level of escalation, sans gun, with no fighting skills.