?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
08 September 2006 @ 06:32 pm
Fighting, fair and equal.  
I have two things to say about fighting.

1) You don't start anything, but you finish everything. If someone is determined to hurt you, he's gonna try their best. You don't let that happen. You make it impossible for that person to hurt you, whether by outwitting him or rendering him unable to fight. If he won't give up so long as he's alive, you kill him without a second thought. Don't waste time or your own blood on concepts like "fair play." When you're in a fight, there are no rules, and there are no winners. There are survivors and the fallen, and you gotta decide right now which one you want to be.

2) All human beings are equal. The old rule about not hitting girls is bullshit in light of that. If you are a guy and a guy starts something, you do what you need to do to make him stop. What difference is there if the person starting shit with you is a girl? Let me tell you something, fellas. You watch two girls fighting who are serious about hurting one another, and you'll never laugh off actual female anger again.
 
 
Current Mood: thoughtfulthoughtful
Current Music: none
 
 
 
Noah Singman: NSS on New Year's Evensingman on September 9th, 2006 02:47 am (UTC)
After reading that, the lingering image is chick fight! :-)

Seriously, though, I think you're channeling your inner libertarian again. Not starting anything means you eschew aggression (i.e., never initiate violence), but you are free to defend yourself. Those are both core libertarian beliefs. As for "fair play" in a one-on-one fight, someone who is an aggressor has already abrogated it.
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on September 9th, 2006 02:55 am (UTC)
(laugh) I'm not a libertarian, not even on the inside. ;) I agree with several fundamental planks of the libertarian floor, but I disagree with a few, as well. With this one, however, I'm in full agreement. If you start a fight, you accept the consequences, and one consequence is that you might get your ass handed to you.

I'm willing to accept that a fight can be started in a manner that does not immediately abrogate an expectation that some rules will apply, however. A classic duel, given as a physically non-violent challenge with the expectation that both parties shall meet later and struggle to a predetermined stopping point, has rules that ought to be obeyed. The fight becomes a contract, and the first one to break the rules ought to be killed immediately. Of course, if the contract itself stipulates a fight to the death, then you need insurance. Someone or something must stand to be forfeited by the one who breaks the rules of the fight. Someone or something precious to the potential rulesbreaker. Of course, if the alternative to accepting the contract to a mortal duel is itself death... well, that's an unfair contract offer and the challenged is under no obligation to either accept or play fair. Offering someone a choice of a fight to the death or immediate death, in my view, should constitute grounds for the challenged to be within his bounds to immediately kill the challenger by any means available.

My society will be draconian... but it will also be a polite one. (laugh)
Ace Lightning: tiedye2acelightning on September 9th, 2006 03:49 am (UTC)
fighting (or warfare) doesn't determine who's right... just who's left...
The Dark-Eyed Mistress of Sweet, Sweet Pain: I eat babiesjenni_the_odd on September 9th, 2006 04:01 am (UTC)
Female anger
Talking to my male friends about their attitudes towards fights, they all tend to go with the whole 'honor' route. Fight fair, all that stupidity.
Me? I would scratch, bite, kick, yank out hair by the roots, choke, gouge, and otherwise do whatever it takes to make my opponent stop moving.

I wonder if it has to do with the frequency of fighting, and the circumstances under which it would be appropriate. All my male friends were raised, essentially, to understand that aggression was normal. Fights are not at all common for them, but it's also not a terrific shock that they would be in one.
The girls I know? We are far more passive. We restrain physical anger, we do not respond to problems with violence. To get us to a point where we would willingly fight, you'd pretty much have to get us to a point where we'd be willing to kill our opponent.
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on September 9th, 2006 04:31 am (UTC)
Re: Female anger
I've said it before, I'll say it again. The song is absolutely correct: the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

You know what people WON'T say at a funeral? "Well, he probably would have won when that guy jumped him, but he fought fair. At least he died honorably."
thatwordgrrl on September 9th, 2006 09:11 am (UTC)
Re: Female anger
Abso-ruttin'lutely.

We females are far more vicious, nasty and downright mean to our own gender than we EVER are to yours.

thatwordgrrl on September 9th, 2006 09:09 am (UTC)
I've fought against both guys and gals.

Gimme a guy to fight any old day of the week. Guys are predictable in their fight, for the most part. Y'all kinda puff and posture for a bit before gettin' down to bidness.

Gals? Fuhgeddaboutit. They'll come at ya outta NOWHERE.

Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on September 9th, 2006 03:20 pm (UTC)
This post came to me after visiting the elder stepdaughter and her brood. The eldest child and the middle child (male and female, respectively) were playing, when girlchild decided it would be fun to smack her brother around, which is apparently not uncommon. Stepdaughter reminded boychild that hitting girls is never okay. As they aren't my kids, I didn't say anything to them. However, this is bad policy, and foolish on its face. If a girl strikes me, she accepts the potential consequences, which is that I will hit her with a frying pan, golf club, brick, kick in the teeth, etc. Also, this is a consequence of the desire to level the playing field, removing gender bias in all aspects of life, which I am all for but only if done totally and equitably. A girl will be treated no differently than a boy at all, or if not, then inequity will continue and might will make right.
Jon Reidcrossfire on September 9th, 2006 07:15 pm (UTC)
It is extremely difficult for me to even think about hitting a woman. I mean, I agree with you intellectually but the "you don't hit a woman" instinct is so drilled into me I'm not sure I ever could except in extreme circumstances.

The best advice I ever got about fighting is this: remember that fights usually have two outcomes: win/lose (where one guy wins and the other looses), and stalemate. Sometimes fighting to a stalemate is easier and wiser than fighting to win.
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on September 9th, 2006 08:32 pm (UTC)
I don't believe there's a winner or a loser to any fight. All fights end in either stalemates or lose/lose. Still. There are degrees of losing, and if I have to fight, I intend to lose a lot less than the other person/people involved.

I'm with you. It's hard to think about hitting a girl or woman for me, as well. Got to think about it, though.
Gramalkingramalkin on September 11th, 2006 04:45 pm (UTC)
I'll admit it, I'm a pacifist. I don't intend to do harm to any creature. But, I'm a flawed pacifist because I lurvs me some steak but will shoo moths out of my house instead of swatting them.

But the point of this was, I do aikido. It is a martial art that the fundamentals of the art allow me to defend myself while making it possible to not have to destroy an attacker (ie: joint locks and submission holds). I control them until they realize it's fruitless to continue to attack (which does include chokes that result in unconsciousness without real damage).

Of course, that flawed part of my pacifism also allows for the fact that if you threaten my daughter, all bets are fricking off and you should be prepared to not have functional bones in any of your limbs. But at least I won't kill you.
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on September 11th, 2006 05:11 pm (UTC)
I've said it before: if I can render you incapable of hurting me without killing you, great. If I can walk away without fighting at all, I've achieved perfect self-defense.

Pacifism is a perfectly valid point of view. It tends to last only until presented with someone who considers "over my dead body" to be a fair bargaining point.
Gramalkingramalkin on September 11th, 2006 05:25 pm (UTC)
Luckily, there's not many people out there that think "I'm taking your wallet and not going to give up until you kill me."

And on the subject of self-defense, I have done quite a few drills with what to do if someone has a gun and comes within arm's reach. And I've heard from law enforcement officials that come to the dojo, that a gun is not a perfect defense if your opponent is within twenty or so feet of you. But if a mugger puts a gun an inch away from me and asks me for my wallet, you damn well know I'm handing that wallet over and doing what I can to make him feel like he's in control of the situation. It's possible I would react similarly to a knife. Cost measurement just doesn't say I should be a hero.
Gramalkingramalkin on September 11th, 2006 05:27 pm (UTC)
Also... I am not this guy.
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on September 11th, 2006 05:35 pm (UTC)
Heh. Sucks to those those three. They got everything they deserved, sounds like. If I'd been the karate champ, I'd have used the mobile to call the police and turn them in immediately; potentially avoids any nonsense like the poor, put upon trio feeding a line of bullshit to sympathetic ears, as they did.
Gramalkingramalkin on September 11th, 2006 05:48 pm (UTC)
I probably would have called the police and then while they were on the line, put the phone up to one of the mugger's ear and had them tell the cops how they were namby pamby little nancy girls that need to have their pink frilly panties changed.

Did I mention I'm a flawed pacifist?