Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greetings

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #46
    Originally posted by hapkido_keith
    Phil is quick to point out that he is the everyman; the non-expert. Then he proceeds to tell you all about what will and will not work in life and death situations. You don't see an inconsistancy here?
    I don't think Phil does that. E.g.:
    Which 'gels' perfectly well with (for example):
    What we won't cover here are joint locks and other compliance techniques that use the pocket stick for leverage. These are too complicated for pragmatic street defense and too involved for the average person's use. ... For the sake of simplicity we will focus on two striking methods: forward thrusts and reverse hammer strikes. The forward strike is one in which the pocket stick is held like a saber and used with a forward thrust straight into the target. This is a good linear technique, though the saber grip is not the strongest for a pocket stick.
    Now, that makes sense to me. He's outlining a technique compatible with his level of skill & experience. He's not saying "I'm an everyman ... so here are some Super-Elite Ancient Egyptian Kubotan Strikes of Death". He's saying "I'm an everyman ... so here are some simple kubotan strikes an everyman can perform, & reply upon."

    I don't get how this stuff is proving so controversial ...

    Comment


      #47
      Originally posted by duncan_bayne
      Now, that makes sense to me. He's outlining a technique compatible with his level of skill & experience. He's not saying "I'm an everyman ... so here are some Super-Elite Ancient Egyptian Kubotan Strikes of Death". He's saying "I'm an everyman ... so here are some simple kubotan strikes an everyman can perform, & reply upon."

      I don't get how this stuff is proving so controversial ...
      This is proving controversial because he is dispensing knowledge that he himself is not claiming to be an expert with. The statement you cited here:
      For the sake of simplicity we will focus on two striking methods: forward thrusts and reverse hammer strikes. The forward strike is one in which the pocket stick is held like a saber and used with a forward thrust straight into the target. This is a good linear technique, though the saber grip is not the strongest for a pocket stick.
      ...comes with the implied assumption that the techniques he shows are useful; that he knows something about a kubotan that you don't or couldn't figure out on your own. If the shown techniques are not intuitive, that is to say you could not pick up a kubotan and say "hey, I bet if I jab someone with one of these it would really hurt," then he is implying some sort of expertise. If the shown techniques ARE intuitive then the result is him telling you something you already know, such as "Hey people! The sky is blue!" for his own purpose of feeling like he is dispensing practical knowledge, or feeling like he is an expert without having to put in the time and develop the discipline to actually be one. Which leads to the next quote you supplied from him:
      Why the fuck does he feel the need to publish his own and martial arts magazine? He even goes so far as to write a booksaid
      Originally posted by Matt Phillips
      Bullshido is not like the police department, or even POWNET; it really just gets random hard ons and then follows it's dick.

      Comment


        #48
        Originally posted by hapkido_keith
        The obvious answer is that he doesn't feel that anyone else has covered or presented the information he is presenting in an adequate manner for use by the general public.
        And in many areas, it hasn't - or, if it has, I haven't found it. Take e.g. the two kubotan articles he wrote.

        If someone has already written a simple introduction to the use of kubotans, aimed at non-experts and tailored to real-life self defense, and published it on line, I haven't seen it.

        Which is why, when I buy a kubotan as a gift for friends & family, I print those articles off & include them.

        Comment


          #49
          Originally posted by duncan_bayne
          And in many areas, it hasn't - or, if it has, I haven't found it. Take e.g. the two kubotan articles he wrote.

          If someone has already written a simple introduction to the use of kubotans, aimed at non-experts and tailored to real-life self defense, and published it on line, I haven't seen it.

          Which is why, when I buy a kubotan as a gift for friends & family, I print those articles off & include them.
          The fact that no one (who actually is an expert) has written articles about this type of weapon aimed at beginners says something.
          I assume you're talking about these articles?
          http://www.themartialist.com/0503/pocketsticks.htm
          http://www.themartialist.com/1203/pocketstrike.htmbest
          Originally posted by Matt Phillips
          Bullshido is not like the police department, or even POWNET; it really just gets random hard ons and then follows it's dick.

          Comment


            #50
            Originally posted by duncan_bayne
            And in many areas, it hasn't - or, if it has, I haven't found it. Take e.g. the two kubotan articles he wrote.

            If someone has already written a simple introduction to the use of kubotans, aimed at non-experts and tailored to real-life self defense, and published it on line, I haven't seen it.

            Which is why, when I buy a kubotan as a gift for friends & family, I print those articles off & include them.
            Well, I don't think its realistic for someone to proclaim their lack of expertise, and then proceed to offer advice in the form of books on specialized methods of self-defence. Or to pose in ridiculous pictures with a Katana for example.

            And frankly, I think you do more harm than good by handing someone a weapon, even a relatively ineffective one, and then giving them a magazine article and sending them on their way. No one should carry a weapon lightly, and no one should carry a weapon without real instruction from someone who is actually trained and skilled in the use of the weapon.

            Pulling a weapon in a fight immediately escalates the threat level, even if your opponent is armed, and dramatically increases your chance that someone is going to get seriously hurt. Thereby increasing the chance that someone is going to jail.

            Carrying a weapon that you aren't trained to use and don't practice with regularly is just a ticket to get your ass killed or badly maimed, or to over-react to a situation and find yourself doing 5 years for aggravated assault.

            And since Phil is a self-proclaimed non-expert, he has no business teaching people this shit.
            Jesus loves you. I think you're an asshole.

            Comment


              #51
              Originally posted by Grashnak
              And frankly, I think you do more harm than good by handing someone a weapon, even a relatively ineffective one, and then giving them a magazine article and sending them on their way. No one should carry a weapon lightly, and no one should carry a weapon without real instruction from someone who is actually trained and skilled in the use of the weapon.
              Indeed. So, you're saying that kubotan use for striking is so simple that Phil shouldn't write an article about it ... but that it's so complicated that it shouldn't be taught by anyone other than an expert?

              Originally posted by Grashnak
              Pulling a weapon in a fight immediately escalates the threat level, even if your opponent is armed, and dramatically increases your chance that someone is going to get seriously hurt. Thereby increasing the chance that someone is going to jail.
              Have you any stats to back up this assertion? Those that I've seen are related to rape (admittedly a small subsection of violent crime), but the interesting thing is that physical resistance, of any kind, dramatically reduces the chance of rape ocurring. Interestingly, resistance of any kind other than with a firearm increases the chance of non-rape injury - in other words pull a weapon other than a gun, and you turn it from attempted rape into a fight.

              Are you saying that women shouldn't carry kubotans, even if their training is limited to reading Phil's articles & practicing striking techniques on inanimate objects? Because the stats I've seen suggest that in the case of stranger rape, they'd be better off with one than without one.

              Originally posted by Grashnak
              Carrying a weapon that you aren't trained to use and don't practice with regularly is just a ticket to get your ass killed or badly maimed, or to over-react to a situation and find yourself doing 5 years for aggravated assault.
              Firstly, where did you get the "don't practice with regularly" thing from? Secondly, I'm a little confused as to why you think that someone carrying a weapon like a kubotan with which they've had no formal training is more likely to over-react to a situation - in other words, that someone going armed is going to behave like some kind of trigger-happy nut-job? I believe your assertion is known in some circles as "projection".

              Comment


                #52
                Originally posted by duncan_bayne

                Have you any stats to back up this assertion? Those that I've seen are related to rape (admittedly a small subsection of violent crime), but the interesting thing is that physical resistance, of any kind, dramatically reduces the chance of rape ocurring. Interestingly, resistance of any kind other than with a firearm increases the chance of non-rape injury - in other words pull a weapon other than a gun, and you turn it from attempted rape into a fight.
                Here comes the fear police. Now do women carry these kubotans while with their friends?

                Don't bring sexual assault into a debate unless you have your facts correct. It is the main reason I frown upon most specific women's self defense classes. The same shit that works for a man works for a woman. The same thing that doesn't work for men doesn't work for women.

                Comment


                  #53
                  Originally posted by It is Fake??
                  Here comes the fear police. Now do women carry these kubotans while with their friends?
                  I swear, I have no idea what you mean by that statement & question.

                  Originally posted by It is Fake??
                  Don't bring sexual assault into a debate unless you have your facts correct. It is the main reason I frown upon most specific women's self defense classes. The same shit that works for a man works for a woman. The same thing that doesn't work for men doesn't work for women.
                  Of course. With a few minor exceptions, the body mechanics of men and women are identical. Again, I'm obviously missing the point of your post ...

                  Comment


                    #54
                    Yes, I know you have no clue. You are asking for stats while using BS stats yourself.

                    Here people are going to call you on fallacious statements. Your whole rape scenarios are misinformed. They are the types of things that lead women to taking dumb SD courses. Think before you type.


                    Look at numbers, statistics, and actual events before, you make statements you know nothing about.

                    Comment


                      #55
                      Originally posted by It is Fake??
                      Look at numbers, statistics, and actual events before, you make statements you know nothing about.
                      "Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990)."

                      I'll dig out the full report if you'd like.

                      Comment


                        #56
                        Originally posted by duncan_bayne
                        "Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990)."

                        I'll dig out the full report if you'd like.
                        Look at what you typed in your earlier post about kubotans. Then find a report that is newer. A report from the early 80's, when rape was still a taboo subject, just reinforces my point. You know get some real statistics.

                        Phil attacks the lowest common denominator. That is where you are going in your argument. If you want I'll show you why?

                        Comment


                          #57
                          Originally posted by It is Fake??
                          Look at what you typed in your earlier post about kubotans. Then find a report that is newer. A report from the early 80's, when rape was still a taboo subject, just reinforces my point. You know get some real statistics.

                          Phil attacks the lowest common denominator. That is where you are going in your argument. If you want I'll show you why?
                          Honestly, I would appreciate it if you explained your position more thoroughly, because at this point I just don't understand what it is that you're trying to say.

                          Comment


                            #58
                            Originally posted by It is Fake??

                            Phil attacks the lowest common denominator. That is where you are going in your argument. If you want I'll show you why?
                            This has turned into a Phil thread. Phil attacks the lowest percentage of situations. This is why I don't like what he preaches. I could actually careless about his paranoia on homeless people and minorities, blacks in particular. It gets dangerous because he preaches violence. Yet, he preaches it from a completely fallacious POV.

                            It is when he gets people like you, spouting dangerous stats and statistics, that I get irritated.

                            Comment


                              #59
                              Originally posted by It is Fake??
                              This has turned into a Phil thread. Phil attacks the lowest percentage of situations. This is why I don't like what he preaches. I could actually careless about his paranoia on homeless people and minorities, blacks in particular. It gets dangerous because he preaches violence. Yet, he preaches it from a completely fallacious POV.

                              It is when he gets people like you, spouting dangerous stats and statistics, that I get irritated.
                              Phil has issues with black people? Could have fooled me, especially given that he's an individualist, in other words one who judges individuals on their own merits, rather than as members of a collective. If you have any evidence of racism on his part I'd be interested to see it.

                              As for self defence & crime stats, I've had a strong interest in that area long before I'd even heard of Phil. As for "dangerous" stats and statistics (leaving aside the tautology there) - what makes statistics "dangerous"? Actually, I bet it's because they're carrying kubotans :icon_wink

                              Comment


                                #60
                                Originally posted by duncan_bayne
                                Indeed. So, you're saying that kubotan use for striking is so simple that Phil shouldn't write an article about it ... but that it's so complicated that it shouldn't be taught by anyone other than an expert?
                                M<aybe I can draw the analogy here. I can tell you how to throw a jab. Just hit the guy fast with your lead hand. That's all a jab is. Based on the information I just told you, what do you think your chances are of landing a successful jab in a boxing match if you had to fight right now?

                                Are you saying that women shouldn't carry kubotans, even if their training is limited to reading Phil's articles & practicing striking techniques on inanimate objects? Because the stats I've seen suggest that in the case of stranger rape, they'd be better off with one than without one.
                                I'm saying that if she's not trained well to use it, the kubotan isn't going to do her any good. And perhaps you can share these stats that you've seen?


                                I won't say I'm an expert, but I will say I'm confident that I know more about hand-to-hand combat than Phil. I'm VERY confident that I know more than you. And I'll say this: the kubotan is a crappy weapon. If you disagree and want to argue about it, or debate the merits of Phil's articles, just start a thread in The Armory or Your Martial Art Sucks subforums, or give the word and I will be happy to start the thread myself and we can discus this topic at length.
                                Originally posted by Matt Phillips
                                Bullshido is not like the police department, or even POWNET; it really just gets random hard ons and then follows it's dick.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X