Thanks for the reply. You're making way too many assumptions about how I think, what i think, and also for including me in
"We have all been manipulated to be passive in the face of their aggression because that makes us the better man".
Something I think is utter nonsense, no offense. By which I mean, both that "we all have" (that's not true) and also that "being passive in the face of aggression makes one a better man". I never have, and never will think that way. I cannot speak for others.
Myself, I was talking merely about what to do when your opponent does not play by the rules.
Appropriate and applicable self defense is exactly playing by the rules, so i really don't know what your thinking is.
Moreover, taking responsibility to self-defense is not only playing by the rules, it's called being responsible. But being underhanded, going out and taking someone out because you are scared, or being dishonest because its you vs them, this is not playing by the rules, imo.
I think we're probably in agreement, but I don't agree with your characterization of my thinking OR for including me in those people you think have been conditioned to the way of thinking you describe.
The idea that being passive in the face of agression is noble is all over the place. It's deep in our culture. It's cooked in.
What happens to a kid in school that defends himself from a bully? Is he a hero? Nope. Is he praised and supported? Nope. Why? Because passivity is valued.
We regularly see self defense criminalized.
That's why they've killed millions of us over the last century, and gotten away with it. We won't oppose then in a way they respect. That's part of why they hate us and see us as sheep and cattle. We act like it. And we've let THEM train us how to think and act.
When I point this out, people object, even though it's right in front of them daily.
Thanks for the reply. You're making way too many assumptions about how I think, what i think, and also for including me in
Something I think is utter nonsense, no offense. By which I mean, both that "we all have" (that's not true) and also that "being passive in the face of aggression makes one a better man". I never have, and never will think that way. I cannot speak for others.
Myself, I was talking merely about what to do when your opponent does not play by the rules.
Appropriate and applicable self defense is exactly playing by the rules, so i really don't know what your thinking is.
Moreover, taking responsibility to self-defense is not only playing by the rules, it's called being responsible. But being underhanded, going out and taking someone out because you are scared, or being dishonest because its you vs them, this is not playing by the rules, imo.
I think we're probably in agreement, but I don't agree with your characterization of my thinking OR for including me in those people you think have been conditioned to the way of thinking you describe.
The idea that being passive in the face of agression is noble is all over the place. It's deep in our culture. It's cooked in.
What happens to a kid in school that defends himself from a bully? Is he a hero? Nope. Is he praised and supported? Nope. Why? Because passivity is valued.
We regularly see self defense criminalized.
That's why they've killed millions of us over the last century, and gotten away with it. We won't oppose then in a way they respect. That's part of why they hate us and see us as sheep and cattle. We act like it. And we've let THEM train us how to think and act.
When I point this out, people object, even though it's right in front of them daily.