Please take a look at Articles on self-defense/conflict/violence for introductions to the references found in the bibliography page.

Please take a look at my bibliography if you do not see a proper reference to a post.

Please take a look at my Notable Quotes

Hey, Attention on Deck!

Hey, NOTHING here is PERSONAL, get over it - Teach Me and I will Learn!

When you begin to feel like you are a tough guy, a warrior, a master of the martial arts or that you have lived a tough life, just take a moment and get some perspective with the following:

I've stopped knives that were coming to disembowel me

I've clawed for my gun while bullets ripped past me

I've dodged as someone tried to put an ax in my skull

I've fought screaming steel and left rubber on the road to avoid death

I've clawed broken glass out of my body after their opening attack failed

I've spit blood and body parts and broke strangle holds before gouging eyes

I've charged into fires, fought through blizzards and run from tornados

I've survived being hunted by gangs, killers and contract killers

The streets were my home, I hunted in the night and was hunted in turn

Please don't brag to me that you're a survivor because someone hit you. And don't tell me how 'tough' you are because of your training. As much as I've been through I know people who have survived much, much worse. - Marc MacYoung


The postings on this blog are my interpretation of readings, studies and experiences therefore errors and omissions are mine and mine alone. The content surrounding the extracts of books, see bibliography on this blog site, are also mine and mine alone therefore errors and omissions are also mine and mine alone and therefore why I highly recommended one read, study, research and fact find the material for clarity. My effort here is self-clarity toward a fuller understanding of the subject matter. See the bibliography for information on the books. Please make note that this article/post is my personal analysis of the subject and the information used was chosen or picked by me. It is not an analysis piece because it lacks complete and comprehensive research, it was not adequately and completely investigated and it is not balanced, i.e., it is my personal view without the views of others including subject experts, etc. Look at this as “Infotainment rather then expert research.” This is an opinion/editorial article/post meant to persuade the reader to think, decide and accept or reject my premise. It is an attempt to cause change or reinforce attitudes, beliefs and values as they apply to martial arts and/or self-defense. It is merely a commentary on the subject in the particular article presented.

Note: I will endevor to provide a bibliography and italicize any direct quotes from the materials I use for this blog. If there are mistakes, errors, and/or omissions, I take full responsibility for them as they are mine and mine alone. If you find any mistakes, errors, and/or omissions please comment and let me know along with the correct information and/or sources.

“What you are reading right now is a blog. It’s written and posted by me, because I want to. I get no financial remuneration for writing it. I don’t have to meet anyone’s criteria in order to post it. Not only I don’t have an employer or publisher, but I’m not even constrained by having to please an audience. If people won’t like it, they won’t read it, but I won’t lose anything by it. Provided I don’t break any laws (libel, incitement to violence, etc.), I can post whatever I want. This means that I can write openly and honestly, however controversial my opinions may be. It also means that I could write total bullshit; there is no quality control. I could be biased. I could be insane. I could be trolling. … not all sources are equivalent, and all sources have their pros and cons. These needs to be taken into account when evaluating information, and all information should be evaluated. - God’s Bastard, Sourcing Sources (this applies to this and other blogs by me as well; if you follow the idea's, advice or information you are on your own, don't come crying to me, it is all on you do do the work to make sure it works for you!)

“You should prepare yourself to dedicate at least five or six years to your training and practice to understand the philosophy and physiokinetics of martial arts and karate so that you can understand the true spirit of everything and dedicate your mind, body and spirit to the discipline of the art.” - cejames (note: you are on your own, make sure you get expert hands-on guidance in all things martial and self-defense)

“All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed.” - Montaigne

I am not a leading authority on any one discipline that I write about and teach, it is my hope and wish that with all the subjects I have studied it provides me an advantage point that I offer in as clear and cohesive writings as possible in introducing the matters in my materials. I hope to serve as one who inspires direction in the practitioner so they can go on to discover greater teachers and professionals that will build on this fundamental foundation. Find the authorities and synthesize a wholehearted and holistic concept, perception and belief that will not drive your practices but rather inspire them to evolve, grow and prosper. My efforts are born of those who are more experienced and knowledgable than I. I hope you find that path! See the bibliography I provide for an initial list of experts, professionals and masters of the subjects.

Morality vs. Fairness: A Conundrum in Communications for Persuasion

Blog Article/Post Caveat (Read First Please: Click the Link)

Let me preface this article with some quotes and a link, quotes from a blog by Scott Adams about persuasion (read the full article here ):

“An interesting article in The Atlantic talks about studies showing that liberals think in terms of fairness while conservatives think in terms of morality. So if you want to persuade someone on the other team, you need to speak in their language. We almost never do that. That’s why you rarely see people change their opinions.” - Scott Adams

“Fairness is a concept invented so children and idiots can participate in debates. Fairness is a subjective illusion. It isn’t a rule of physics, and it isn’t an objective quality of the universe. We just think it is.” - Scott Adams

“morality is usually seen as coming from God; morality as a set of rationalizations for our biological impulses.” - Scott Adams

“If your aim is to persuade, you have to speak the language of the other. Talking about fairness to a conservative, or morality to a liberal, fails; The other side just can’t hear what you are saying.” - Scott Adams

“Logic, morality, and fairness are three different approaches to persuasion. Take most debates out of the weeds of fairness and morality to what I call the High Ground, where everyone already agrees; there is no way to reach agreement if we are squabbling about morality and fairness; we might agree that the Federal government should stay out of the abortion business – both pro or con – and leave those types of decisions to the individual and the states.” - Scott Adams

Why doesn’t this include, “Logic?” In my view because in regard to such important emotionally charged and driven subjects, etc., it is impossible for the species of humans to think, analyze and synthesize a logical answer or response. It just doesn’t happen and we can only hope that humans receive appropriate knowledge and then independently create appropriate understanding so they recognize when they are in the clutches of the emotionally driven monkey brain allowing for a chance to be logical. Ever wonder why Star Trek was so popular over the decades, the Spock and Kirk dichotomy hit on our very core? 

The entire profession of compliance professionalism is about using influence principles in such a way as to overcome such obstacles - mostly. They do work most of the time and that is seem glaringly in our last elections of the highest office of our land (dtd Nov 2016). It is no wonder that the conundrum of persuasive communications is based on the dynamics of morality vs. fairness for the two seldom meet in the middle in a balanced and beneficial way. 

Now, in martial arts and karate (knew I would get here at some time didn’t you?) the two types tend to be dangerous to self-fense especially if your rely on social conditioning and a total lack of individual coping skills to get-r-done. Social conditions that require us to look to others to solve problems over solving problems ourselves. Yes, that is a truism!

How we believe, perceive and make the distinctions in regard to what we “THINK” is morally right and fair leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to conflict and violence for these two make a huge contribution, due to our ignorance and immaturity in their regard, toward actual conflict and violence that goes outside the self-defense square.

Ever feel like you need to teach the guy a lesson after an argument and fight? Do you realize that if you do teach the guy a lesson, provided you are actually using self-defense in its legal form according to the law, that it will take you so far out of the self-defense square you will go directly to jail and be prosecuted without passing go or collecting two hundred dollars, Oh whorahh, we are having fun now. 

Morality and Fairness seem to my view and perception to be the two major reasons why we fight and often go to war. We think and feel in our culture that the way of life of others who don’t adhere to our social beliefs and requirements needs to be corrected, our moral standing and belief, in order to ensure the others are treated fairly, according to our moral standing and belief, so we go to war to make those others act in accordance with our moral standings and beliefs - ain’t that fair (there is a pun in there somewhere)?

Remember this, in the legal system and according to the law, “Self-Defense is an affirmative defense,” meaning that morality and fairness don’t exist in the law or the legal system. The goals of the law and the legal system is to win using the laws and legal system accordingly. They simply DO NOT CARE about morality or fairness, yours or theirs or others, they simply use the law to play the legal system game to win, for themselves and you are simply a pawn in that game. Not fair is it? 

Now, another aspect is this, avoidance and deescalation, two tenants of realistic self-defense. In order to do either you may have to understand that you may have to forget what you consider fair and forget any moral grounds you may believe that would cause a conflict to go violent, a tactic like running away that would mean being open to violence if you don’t and other such moral and sense of fairness rules you may or may not have. 

If your self-defense training does not address a self-analysis of what you are willing to do and not do you might find that your moral ground and sense of fairness is way over the line when others judge you be it first responders or any remember of the legal system because if it comes down to them what you feel is fair and it may end up being patently unfair, what you feel is right, righteous and morally right doesn’t really matter because it is about the others win-loss ratio’s in the legal system accordingly with some influence of law according to how willing those others are to manipulate, twist and persuade others to judge accordingly - it ain’t about morality or fairness or any other emotional belief system you may or may not have. 

In self-defense, the full monty of self-defense, are you willing to set aside any morals you may have for or against the conflict and violence of the situation, are you willing to let go of your sense of fairness, as to fairness of a competitive encounter, etc., to do what is necessary up to the very limits of the law, the legal system and according to social acceptable behavior to get-r-done especially when it comes to doing damage to others? 

You can say you will but when it comes time to do, will you do it? Often, we can adamantly say we will and we may actually come through but will we do so within the self-defense square? A complex question that must be thought out with all the requisite knowledge and understanding to make such a crucially important decision. Your life and the life of others depends on it!

Another experienced professional asks, “If your children were in danger, would you kill to protect them?” Here is how I would answer that question, it depends? Now, you might be saying to me, shame on you! I would append to that statement my full and qualified answer. If I failed to avoid any and all situations that would, could or possibly lead to violence against my family that would result in their deaths and no other option of avoidance to deescalation were possible or would work then, “I would take appropriate actions to protect my family from death or possible death.” I would hope that I had taken all the lessons and knowledge and training necessary to perform such protections up to and including accepted self-defense within the requirements of the law, the legal system and the social requirements that say my affirmative defense of self-defense up to and including killing another person would be justified. You see, it is complex but I know in my heart that to just say I would kill another in such a question as posed above does trigger an emotional response but I won’t say with a blanket I would unless all options are exhausted of which I have knowledge and have knowledge of what I may or may not know. This is why self-defense in our world, our society, our culture and that of the world can be - complicated. To blankly and emotionally say, YES, without some qualification opens me to other obstacles that could and might make me eat my words and my words are important to how I act both in and out of a moral and fairness sense in my beliefs. I guess I have one quality I find good, the quality that I am willing to change my beliefs to fit the needs of the situation as long as it doesn’t take me outside the square.

Saying all that I have one caveat and this addresses my moral standing and strong sense of right and wrong. If I were in a given situation and circumstance that I felt warranted me taking actions that resulted in someone’s death that I would do so regardless of the consequences then I may do so, I said may because I understand and accept that there are NO ABSOLUTES in anything of human, humanity and human nature regardless. 

Here is why, “There is absolutely no way, not ever and not now how, one can truly, completely and absolutely know what they will do in any given situation such as the question poses and to say absolutely and unequivocally say you will kill is irresponsible, stupid and just wrong and it will come back to bite you one way or another - maybe.” The reason many can say quickly and without hesitation they would is because in all probability, for most, that situation will never happen and they will never have to put the money on the line. This is true for most when it comes to applying self-defense skills in reality, it will never happen - maybe. The chances anyone answering that question will encounter an attack where their choice to kill is the only one is so remote you have a better chance of winning the California Super Lotto. Saying we would kill in that situation makes us feel safe, it tells our ego’s were are brave warriors and it tells our families they are safe and secure in this bad old world in which we live but truthfully, if we lives hundreds of years ago that wouldn’t be as true as today. 

Many who take self-defense want some self-soothing feeling of ego and emotional security while often not exposing ourselves to the actual dangers so we can sleep at night and go through our days with a comforting feeling but feelings are often not reality. We can all be glad that we won’t and don’t have to put the cards on the table and accept them, win or lose, just be glad!

Bibliography (Click the link)

No comments: