How about Violence be the next "Gay Movement"?

[McBell]

See post 7

From post #7:

a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house)
b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
​

Perhaps you have a different definition of injure and or abuse?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

In the video I posted the girl was neither injured or abused, what is your point?

 

[McBell]

In the video I posted the girl was neither injured or abused, what is your point?

Really?
Interesting.

I wonder if the police would think the same thing if I was to sneak up behind someone and perform the move in the video on some random person in the mall.....

 

[Venatoris]

In the video I posted the girl was neither injured or abused

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
That girl is one hell of a good sport. Choking someone out is still violence regardless of your definition. True, it may not be extremely painful but it certainly isn't comfortable(not to mention the brain cells you kill by depriving a person of oxygen). Trust me, I've been on both sides of a choke hold.

And if you notice the name on the backdrop, this is Cobra Kai! Famous for their slogan "Sweep the leg!". Not exactly non-violence at its best.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Really?
Interesting.

I wonder if the police would think the same thing if I was to sneak up behind someone and perform the move in the video on some random person in the mall.....

That video was in response to linwood asking me to show how a violent drugged assailant might be subdued without pain or violence.

Why must you take it out of context and talk about a random person at a mall. Your arguments are usually good and make me think, so what happened here?

 

[McBell]

That video was in response to linwood asking me to show how a violent drugged assailant might be subdued without pain or violence.

Why must you take it out of context and talk about a random person at a mall. Your arguments are usually good and make me think, so what happened here?

I was replying to YOUR claim that the move is not violent because no one was injured or abused.
My point is that the legal system in the USA disagrees with that claim.
Thus reiterating the point that the move you prescribe is in fact merely violence combating violence.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I was replying to YOUR claim that the move is not violent because no one was injured or abused.
My point is that the legal system in the USA disagrees with that claim.
Thus reiterating the point that the move you prescribe is in fact merely violence combating violence.

Your point here about the legal system has no bearing on the conversation.
You are not comprehending Linwood and I's conversation. Stop embarrassing yourself.

First you asked me to define violence, which I had already done. Next use introduce this video as being used in the mall which I never suggested.

Let me say it clearly for you though. In a world that might adopt my ideas of minimizing violence to eventually no violence at all, it would be more than helpful to have techniques such as those in the video that handle REAL violence with passive techniques that subdue and make able the violent offender to be arrested without causing anyone pain.

THAT was the point being asked by Linwood, not anything to do with legal jargon. Quite simple he wanted to know how to subdue a drugged assailant without violence.
The move in the video technically does not fit under the definition of violence in that situation. Doesn't matter what the law says in this situation, as we were just speaking hypotheticals.

Of course doing this in current public would get you in trouble, when did I ever say it wouldn't?????

 

[McBell]

Your point here about the legal system has no bearing on the conversation.
You are not comprehending Linwood and I's conversation. Stop embarrassing yourself.

First you asked me to define violence, which I had already done. Next use introduce this video as being used in the mall which I never suggested.

Let me say it clearly for you though. In a world that might adopt my ideas of minimizing violence to eventually no violence at all, it would be more than helpful to have techniques such as those in the video that handle REAL violence with passive techniques that subdue and make able the violent offender to be arrested without causing anyone pain.

THAT was the point being asked by Linwood, not anything to do with legal jargon. Quite simple he wanted to know how to subdue a drugged assailant without violence.
The move in the video technically does not fit under the definition of violence in that situation. Doesn't matter what the law says in this situation, as we were just speaking hypotheticals.

Of course doing this in current public would get you in trouble, when did I ever say it wouldn't?????

You said it was not violent.
I disagree and so does the legal system.
THAT is the point, that it IS IN FACT VIOLENCE.
Thus meaning that you have as yet to answer Linwood's question:

Then you can perhaps give me a single example of how you would stop a drug crazed assailant from continuing to batter an innocent victim that does not require violence?

Of course now that you have employed the No True Scotsman...

 

[Just_me_Mike]

You said it was not violent.
I disagree and so does the legal system.
THAT is the point, that it IS IN FACT VIOLENCE.
Thus meaning that you have as yet to answer Linwood's question:Of course now that you have employed the No True Scotsman...

No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim... Source

So now you are suggesting that this technique I showed is universally viewed as violent? Please...

You disagree and so does the legal system. How can you speak for the legal system here? Present info that says that technique is classified as violent in the legal system. You will only be able to do that if you take me out of context. Which of course you wouldn't do.

However if in my context which is all that matters for this discussion, is that if someone drugged out of their mind was hurting another person, I could employ this technique without abusing that person or inflicting injury on them to stop them, which was specific to Linwood's question.

Wanna try again? I have clearly defined violence, and clearly shown that this move does not fall into the category of that definition. Maybe if you force it in there, but still wouldn't fit.:slap:

 

[McBell]

So now you are suggesting that this technique I showed is universally viewed as violent? Please...

You disagree and so does the legal system. How can you speak for the legal system here? Present info that says that technique is classified as violent in the legal system. You will only be able to do that if you take me out of context. Which of course you wouldn't do.

However if in my context which is all that matters for this discussion, is that if someone drugged out of their mind was hurting another person, I could employ this technique without abusing that person or inflicting injury on them to stop them, which was specific to Linwood's question.

Wanna try again? I have clearly defined violence, and clearly shown that this move does not fall into the category of that definition. Maybe if you force it in there, but still wouldn't fit.:slap:

Your fanaticism is duly noted.

 

[MaybeSpartacus]

Wanna try again? I have clearly defined violence, and clearly shown that this move does not fall into the category of that definition.

And every dictionary, legal system, and ethical code in the world disagrees with you. It is still violence... black is still black even if you believe it to be white. The person was harmed, because, as stated by someone else oxygen deprivation leads to cellular death, particularly in the brain. A strong enough choke hold can also cause contusions alongside damage to the trachea and larynx. This is even removing the discomfort and heightened fight or flight response which would occur in a person if this were attempted in a real life scenario rather than a demonstration with a willing volunteer. You simply seem unwilling to admit that violence can in many cases be appropriate and justified as a response even though you clearly believe it, instead resorting to semantic arguing. You might want to read Assault and in particular Battery.

"any unlawful touching of the person of another by the aggressor himself, or by a substance put in motion by him."

There are other laws of course that would prevent you from being charged in certain cases for using violence. Defending yourself or another person for instance.

 

[linwood]

A rear naked choke lock takes less than 5 seconds to make someone pass out, drugged or not. I know this from experience and my background. There is no pain involved at all.

That`s violence.
That`s not allowed in your proposed world.

You might say, but what if you can't get the choke on the person. I would then suggest that unless that person is trained to counter Brazilian JiuJitsu, there is no way in hell he could avoid getting choked unconscious.

Haven`t been in a lot of street fights have you?
I`ll take the biker with the bottle of Jack and baseball bat in my corner any day over the Brazillian jujits..whatever.

Oh and BTW thanks for asking... This is only one of many ways to handle someone without pain.

I see why someone asked for a definition of "violence" at the beginning of this thread now.
You`ve just destroyed your own point.
A choke hold IS violence.

 

[linwood]

Thus reiterating the point that the move you prescribe is in fact merely violence combating violence.

Which is to my knowledge the only way to combat violence.

Which is my ultimate point.

I thank Mike for making it for me.
I`m done.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

It is amusing some people on the RF want to be so black or white.
How many times have I said minimizing violence would first need to happen before violence can be gotten rid of. You are so excited to make a point or win a silly debate you end up looking foolish. This move is violence minimized to the nth degree. This is not back peddling because I have said severL times now we need to minimize it while we try to eliminate it.

As for your suggestion about bar room brawled over a Brazilian JiuJitsu expert, you are speaking completely out you *** now.
Have I ever been in a fight? Ha! Both in competition and in real life many times. Your right, I'm done too talking to someone who enjoy bickering about crap they no nothing of rather than learning. Thanks for the chuckle!

 

[McBell]

This is not back peddling because I have said severL times now we need to minimize it while we try to eliminate it.

It is back peddling simply because you stated the move is not violent.

NOW you are stating that "This move is violence minimized to the nth degree."

Make up your mind.

 

[Midnight Pete]

It is back peddling simply because you stated the move is not violent.

NOW you are stating that "This move is violence minimized to the nth degree."

Make up your mind.

You're lucky no one can punch you in the face for being so irritating....

 

[McBell]

You're lucky no one can punch you in the face for being so irritating....

LOL
Perhaps it is those who would throw said punch who are "lucky"?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

It is back peddling simply because you stated the move is not violent.

NOW you are stating that "This move is violence minimized to the nth degree."

Make up your mind.

You simply exist on the RF to nitpick, and have no concern for substance. It seems to make you feel good about yourself by posting, regardless of the value of posting.

I do not believe the move to be violent, but clearly others do. What a mature adult would conclude no matter the opinion is it is a much better way to handle a drugged assailant than to shoot, punch, kick or otherwise bluntly subdue the person. If in fact it works.

Instead of common ground you enjoy your island of absurdity to which countless posters point out all the time about yourself.

I enjoy the good snide remark when it is clever and proper, like jayhawker is very good at. Your game is beneath me and ever so it shows you are here because you have no life.

Excuse me while I laugh real hard now...

 

[McBell]

You simply exist on the RF to nitpick, and have no concern for substance. It seems to make you feel good about yourself by posting, regardless of the value of posting.

I do not believe the move to be violent, but clearly others do. What a mature adult would conclude no matter the opinion is it is a much better way to handle a drugged assailant than to shoot, punch, kick or otherwise bluntly subdue the person. If in fact it works.

Instead of common ground you enjoy your island of absurdity to which countless posters point out all the time about yourself.

I enjoy the good snide remark when it is clever and proper, like jayhawker is very good at. Your game is beneath me and ever so it shows you are here because you have no life.

Excuse me while I laugh real hard now...

*yawn*
:sleep:

Ironic that in the middle of your childish rant you whine about maturity.
So what, an inconsistency was pointed out to you.
The mature thing would have been to say something like "oops, let me get back to you on that one".

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I don't believe it to be violent when compared to the definition of violence. So no, the is not inconsitancy. Amazing how you can continue to stick to a point as to drown something for self amusement. Speaking of childish!
Reminds me of a child seeking attention. How old are you again?