We live among monsters.

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Armin said:

I am German. Maybe it's a language barrier from time to time, and I always wish I could speak English the way I speak German. It's just because. I didn't study English, learned it only at school, also French, was good at it, later absolved a course in commercial English and try to improve it continuously.

Okay, my point: I think you've given some examples of martial art that simply seemed a bit misplaced to me (sorry). That was certainly your attempt of humour.  What I mean is the mental way, the Bushido, like in Karate-Do, the way - I think that's most essential. I'm sure now you see what I mean.

By the way, there is sometimes even some sense in seemingly nonsensical comments - it only depends on the personal grade of empathy to realize that.

I kinda get what your saying.  And I'm not contradicting it.  Here's where I was coming from.

One day I was at practice.  A woman came into the Dojang to see if we taught "self-defense".  She looked at what we were doing for 5 seconds and decided to walk out saying,"That's not self-defense".  What was curious was that we were practicing our punches and kicks at the time.  Punching and kicking were about as basic and fundamental as you can get.  But it wasn't her idea of self-defense.

About 10 minutes after she left, we were done with our conditioning exercises and practiced escapes.  These included situations where an assailant has you by the wrist and you are to try to free yourself.  My hunch is that this was more like what this lady had in mind as "self-defense".

Later, my schoolmaster clarified something that this lady obviously did not understand.  EVERYthing is self-defense.  If you know how to punch better than another person, and that's the only skill you learn, you are better equipped to defend yourself than someone who hasn't.  If you're just learning to run faster and longer than if you never worked out, you're better equipped to escape than someone who isn't doing such conditioning.  I'd challenge anyone to deny that simple truth.

I took it the next step.  If you know how to hurt someone physically and do it well, you're better equipped to hurt someone physically than someone who does not have such training.  Therefore, it is a martial skill.

I was watching an episode of Elementary wherein Holmes was practicing his "one stick".  He took his baton and practiced hitting a single spot on the head of a dummy.  He would practice for hours a day until he could hit spot on in a blink -- without even thinking about it.  This is so simple it is almost boring.  But to do it accurately and quickly without thinking about it takes MUCH practice.  They made it a point to show this happening in several episodes to make sure the idea was sunk in to the audience's psyche.  Finally, he used it on a bad guy.  It was completely believable because we knew he was practicing this single technique for hours on end for many weeks.  Many still don't think of it as a martial skill.  But it was certainly effective as such.

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

While agree with your overall point, I don't see how this ^^^ can be avoided.  Children don't have the capacity to make the judgment call or the experience enough to know what "paranoia" is vs "caution".  And as we form habits while young, when we are old, we will not depart from it.

I believe "paranoia" can be avoided through proper teaching by precept and example. As a youth, I was paranoid of strangers; however, that was more due to my personal nature, and as I have grown old I am not paranoid of strangers. I am now aware of my surroundings and impressions.  The last sentence then causes me to say, yes we can depart from it.

My children this past week were able to ride Trax and were among plenty of strangers. These experiences provide opportunities to teach by precept and example. As a child appears to experience "fear", "paranoia", or "anxiety" a parent is then able to teach and by example show they are in control of their emotions also.

However, I believe I understand what you are saying and why you are sharing "I don't see how this ^^^ can be avoided." I believe children will first experience "fear", so it truly can't be avoided to a degree, unless there is proper teaching.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Armin said:

Okay, I agree, it's a simple truth. And I agree that in the second example it's martial skill. But what I mean is that the mental aspect shouldn't be forgotten. What would you think about the mental aspect, and what about "Ki" (I've chosen the Japanese word)...?     

http://shitokai.com/archives/1019    

http://www.karate-herdecke.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45:-ki&catid=3:news&Itemid=13

Like I said, once you clarified your position, I wasn't disagreeing you.  I was simply focusing on one thing while you were focusing on another.  But the way you presented it at first made it sound like you believed there was some sort of conflict.  In the end, there was none.

[Guest]

I've read that we should teach children not about strangers, but "tricky people", since they can be people you know or don't know. Like, adults don't ask kids for help... so if someone you don't know wants help finding his dog or getting something out of his car, you know he's being tricky. If someone you do know asks you to do something that feels wrong or bad and tells you it's a secret, they're being tricky. That's a simplification, but the general idea.

[Backroads]

19 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Sorry Backroads, we tend to agree on many subjects, this statement I wholeheartedly disagree with, and the safety experts (IMHO) are not much of experts. In my wife's neighborhood growing up a child was nearly grabbed by a pedophile. The concept of "Don't talk to strangers" is what spared her from an awful situation. She was approached by a man in a car and when he tried to talk to her she remembered words she was taught, "Don't talk to strangers," which upon ignoring the "strangers" ploy of interaction he then tried to grab her. It was the distance from the car, and her willingness to fight that spared her from an awful situation. If she would have been closer to the car by not avoiding a stranger, she would have been close enough for him to grab and easily get her in the car. Stranger danger is a concept that should be continued taught. As should other conversation be taught also. Paranoia toward strangers, no, this is the idea that should be avoided. We should continue to teach, as children (the majority of them) aren't going to be able to always distinguish between good and bad strangers, but they definitely can distinguish stranger from someone they know.

with all due respect, I am not sure what her willingness to fight had to do with not talking to strangers. She was smart to not approach the car. Was it her refusal to speak or her distance and willingness to fight that ultimately saved her? I totally believe in not needlessly approaching strangers and certainly not going off with them.

But I maintain kids knowing how to talk to strangers is a crucial skill. What are they supposed to do if they are lost?

Edited April 12, 2017 by Backroads

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Armin said:

I'm not sure. There seems to be a conflict, because I believe in the mental power (alongside the physical skill). Let me repeat my question, what you think about this aspect and what you think about "Ki". I want to emphasize, that this aspect only takes place in traditional martial art schools like Karate-Do (Shotokan) or others. Let me say it like this: If the "Ki" energy can't flow and not  get concentrated at the right moment in the parts of your body where it's required, it's only physical skill without the amplifying effect of "Ki".

OF COURSE it's important.  I'll repeat again.  I was FOCUSING on a different aspect.

Exposition:

I do not believe in chi as is depicted in Oriental Lore.  I do believe there is an energy created by combining mental focus and determination with physical techniques.  This is additionally magnified by adding a spiritual element to it as well.  In very general terms this may sound the same as chi.  But it is different in the details.

In the LDS faith we believe we can be sustained spiritually to overcome some weaknesses in our bodies.  And we believe all power comes from God.  The details of such are not outlined in our faith.  But I believe there is always energy flowing from God (Light of Christ, Power of the Holy Ghost, Gifts).  Then there is energy that is focused (prayer, ordinances, Gift of the Holy Ghost).  The proper understanding of them in terms of God is the key to truly unlocking them.  

I believe Oriental philosophies have recognized a portion of it and find it to be real.  But they do not truly understand it.  And they don't correctly understand the nature of that power. Therefore, they can never fully access it properly.

If you know your history -- I'd use the discovery of rubber as a metaphor.  Sap from the rubber tree was known to have interesting physical properties for a very long time.  But it has so many weaknesses.  It was difficult to work with.  It became brittle. etc.  But when Charles Goodyear invented vulcanization it opened up many doors.  And the rubber industry was born.

Asians have rubber sap and know there's something to it, while westerners have dismissed it as useless.  The LDS faith offers the vulcanization for it.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I believe "paranoia" can be avoided through proper teaching by precept and example. As a youth, I was paranoid of strangers; however, that was more due to my personal nature, and as I have grown old I am not paranoid of strangers. I am now aware of my surroundings and impressions.  The last sentence then causes me to say, yes we can depart from it.

My children this past week were able to ride Trax and were among plenty of strangers. These experiences provide opportunities to teach by precept and example. As a child appears to experience "fear", "paranoia", or "anxiety" a parent is then able to teach and by example show they are in control of their emotions also.

However, I believe I understand what you are saying and why you are sharing "I don't see how this ^^^ can be avoided." I believe children will first experience "fear", so it truly can't be avoided to a degree, unless there is proper teaching.

Considering.

[Backroads]

6 hours ago, Eowyn said:

I've read that we should teach children not about strangers, but "tricky people", since they can be people you know or don't know. Like, adults don't ask kids for help... so if someone you don't know wants help finding his dog or getting something out of his car, you know he's being tricky. If someone you do know asks you to do something that feels wrong or bad and tells you it's a secret, they're being tricky. That's a simplification, but the general idea.

I think this is the best advice. 

Though, funnily enough, there are exceptions. I've asked strange kids before if they've seen such-n-such, which I suppose is technically "asking for help."

[zil]

17 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I've asked strange kids before...

Do you ever ask normal kids?  Or only the strange ones?

[anatess2]

16 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I believe "paranoia" can be avoided through proper teaching by precept and example. As a youth, I was paranoid of strangers; however, that was more due to my personal nature, and as I have grown old I am not paranoid of strangers. I am now aware of my surroundings and impressions.  The last sentence then causes me to say, yes we can depart from it.

My children this past week were able to ride Trax and were among plenty of strangers. These experiences provide opportunities to teach by precept and example. As a child appears to experience "fear", "paranoia", or "anxiety" a parent is then able to teach and by example show they are in control of their emotions also.

However, I believe I understand what you are saying and why you are sharing "I don't see how this ^^^ can be avoided." I believe children will first experience "fear", so it truly can't be avoided to a degree, unless there is proper teaching.

I'm with @Backroads on this one.  I did not teach my kids "Don't talk to Strangers".  That, to me, is confusing, especially when I am also teaching them to be missionaries.

You can teach your kids to be SITUATIONALLY AWARE.  Yes, even at a very young age, well, at least old enough to play away from mom and dad.  Interestingly, this is something kids learn in a legit martial arts school (exactly my point about martial arts training kids how to think more so than what to do).  Therefore, a stranger walking his dog past the neighborhood saying hi would have a different perception to the kid than a stranger walking his dog past the neighborhood asking the kid to walk the dog with him through the thick woods.

P.S.  My kids were 5 and 3 when I had a leash on their backpacks in Busch Gardens.  People gave me weird looks.  My kids were 10 and 8 when I let them lose to wait in line and ride Busch Gardens rides on their own.  When they were 14 and 12, I would sit in a nearby Busch Gardens cafeteria and work on my computer while they go run around the place on their own.

Edited April 12, 2017 by anatess2

[NightSG]

On 4/10/2017 at 3:17 PM, Carborendum said:

This is where Aikido can come in handy.  It teaches you to look for paths of 'energy'.  In reality it is kinetic energy and vectors that you're able to key in on.  With that, you essentially do a gunkata on bodies rather than bullets.  This helps you to dodge more effectively.  Experienced fighters describe fighting an Aikido master as being similar to "fighting air".  You think he's there.  But when your punch lands, it only hits air.

Air is the next to last level; air can be compressed, moved, even changed in form.  Perfect aikido is like fighting absolutely nothing at all.  You can't hurt a vacuum, all you can do is wish you could still breathe.

Yeah, it takes decades to get there, but it's really a wild trip to do a full on attack against one of the real masters; you end up on the ground, completely unhurt, unsure about how you got there, and absolutely sure he didn't do anything to cause it.

[Anddenex]

3 hours ago, Backroads said:

with all due respect, I am not sure what her willingness to fight had to do with not talking to strangers. She was smart to not approach the car. Was it her refusal to speak or her distance and willingness to fight that ultimately saved her? I totally believe in not needlessly approaching strangers and certainly not going off with them.

But I maintain kids knowing how to talk to strangers is a crucial skill. What are they supposed to do if they are lost?

It appears my words were misunderstood. Let me see if I can clarify. The young girl was taught "Don't talk to strangers." When a "stranger" approached her in a car she ignored him, because he was a "stranger" -- as she was taught. Her decision to not talk to strangers kept her walking thus distancing herself from the car. When the perp realized he couldn't attract her, he got out of his car and tried to grab her. Her distance from the car, directly correlated with her unwillingness to talk to a stranger, AND the fact that she fought caused the perp to let her go because she was to far from his car. If she was willing to talk to strangers she would have stopped, talked, and been in closer proximity to his car. So yes, her parents teaching "Don't talk to strangers" allowed her to distance herself from a perp and his car and her willingness to kick and scream disturbed the perp enough that he let her go, ran to his car, and then took off.

I fully agree Backroads that knowing how to talk to strangers is crucial. I don't disagree at all. I fully disagree with the notion of "never" teaching "Don't talk to strangers." If this is what experts are saying, they are wrong.

What are they supposed to do if they are lost?

I will provide a personal example. My children have been taught both, "Do not talk to strangers" as well as listening to impressions of the heart. When my oldest was around 12 years old, my second was 9, and my third was 7. We were in the Uintas. We went for a walk to reach a lake. On the way back to our car we let the three older children go ahead. I was keeping a good pace and when I arrived at our car, my three oldest were no where in sight. Yes, all the stories of children lost in the Uintas ran through my mind. Eventually, we found them, fortunately, but not surprising. My children tell us what happened, "The path wasn't clear and we took a left when we should have taken a right. When we tried to get back we couldn't find the trail. We walked a good distance before we knew we were lost. After searching, and in tears, we decided to pray. We knelt down and offered a prayer. They then walked in the direction they felt was right. As they walked they heard a couple. The couple was an older couple (a couple I had passed when I was walking to the car), and my son felt an impression, "Talk to this couple," and he asked the couple if they knew the right way. The couple then showed them where the path becomes unclear and that if they followed this path they would get on the main path." Needless to say, they made it back. It was the impression from the Spirit after a prayer that my son knew it was OK to speak to these strangers.

As for me, if a man pulls up next to my children in a car, you bet I want the teaching "Don't talk to strangers" to enter in their mind.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Anddenex
removing to distancing

[Backroads]

39 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I fully disagree with the notion of "never" teaching "Don't talk to strangers." If this is what experts are saying, they are wrong.

What they taught for decades was nothing more than "Don't talk to strangers." This created far more problems than it solved. Simplistic ideas of "I taught my kids to never talk to strangers and therefore I have done all the stranger danger education I need" causes huge problems.

All safety groups are repairing this, and for the better. 

The focus now is far, far more comprehensive and includes tricky people in those the kids know, the group vastly responsible for child kidnapping and other endangerment.

Perhaps we are talking over each other?

Edited April 12, 2017 by Backroads

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Backroads said:

What they taught for decades was nothing more than "Don't talk to strangers." This created far more problems than it solved. Simplistic ideas of "I taught my kids to never talk to strangers and therefore I have done all the stranger danger education I need" causes huge problems.

The focus now is far, far more comprehensive and includes tricky people in those the kids know, the group vastly responsible for child kidnapping and other endangerment.

That's a good point @Backroads. Children are much, much more likely to be abducted by someone they know. 

[Anddenex]

2 minutes ago, Backroads said:

What they taught for decades was nothing more than "Don't talk to strangers." This created far more problems than it solved. Simplistic ideas of "I taught my kids to never talk to strangers and therefore I have done all the stranger danger education I need" causes huge problems.

All safety groups are repairing this, and for the better. 

The focus now is far, far more comprehensive and includes tricky people in those the kids know, the group vastly responsible for child kidnapping and other endangerment.

Perhaps we are talking over each other?

I think we are of the same mind, I still think teaching "Don't talk to strangers" is good. I don't think only teaching "Don't talk to strangers" is the only thing we should teach.

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I think we are of the same mind, I still think teaching "Don't talk to strangers" is good. I don't think only teaching "Don't talk to strangers" is the only thing we should teach.

You are both right. I think most parents successfully achieve the middle ground between "Trust no one and hate the world" and "jump in the van driven by the creepiest guy you can find." 

[Backroads]

9 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I think we are of the same mind, I still think teaching "Don't talk to strangers" is good. I don't think only teaching "Don't talk to strangers" is the only thing we should teach.

I guess I see "Don't talk to strangers" more as an exception than the norm, all things being equal. I'd much rather have my kids worrying about other things when around people they don't know than talking to them or not.

[NightSG]

On 4/11/2017 at 1:32 PM, Anddenex said:

It was the distance from the car, and her willingness to fight that spared her from an awful situation. If she would have been closer to the car by not avoiding a stranger, she would have been close enough for him to grab and easily get her in the car.

Yes, but if she'd evaded the attack, blended with it and used its energy to help the attacker into a position where his forehead would meet the ground with the full momentum of his body behind it, he might have entirely forgotten to be a pedophile.

Don't be violent, but when you have to, be very violent...but in a calm and peaceful way.

[mirkwood]

9 hours ago, NightSG said:

Don't be violent, but when you have to, be very violent...but in a calm and peaceful way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NightSG]

7 hours ago, Armin said:

I guess Steven Seagal is one of them.

Seagal Sensei's style of aikido is a lot more energetic than I care for.  At the point where you're putting that much effort into it, it's less Ueshiba's art.  Not saying it isn't effective, (and I'm sure he's more than capable of plenty of lower-exertion techniques, but they don't appear to be his preference even outside the movies) but IMO aikido really should be about how you can end the fight while burning as few of your own calories as possible,

After all, most fights that aren't over by the second punch are won by the guy who doesn't tire out first, so wearing your opponent down with as little of your own exertion as possible is a really effective tactic.

[NightSG]

17 hours ago, Armin said:

And, btw., why shouldn't you burn some calories, when the most important thing is just to be the winner in a self defence situation? You wouldn't need your calories any more when lying down and maybe watch the radish from six feet under...

Your metabolism is already going to crank up high.  You can burn your glycogen reserve in a matter of seconds if you go full-on with everything you've got while already in a situation with the stress level of a potentially deadly fight, then you're going to be at a serious disadvantage.

Even if you manage to wear that opponent down at the expense of too much of your own energy, you won't have anything left when his fresh buddy steps up.

Plus, as you get older and/or your list of injuries builds up, you're going to lose endurance.  That, IMO, is the reason Ueshiba's techniques kept getting softer and more evasive; he was a strong man, but strength alone won't get you through an hour long demo of students all wanting to be the one that finally manages to land a strike or catch a joint lock on the doshu.  A master's initial evasion almost feels like your mind is being attacked; you can see the target, you know you can hit it, but when your fist gets there, there's nothing for it to hit.  Then there are a couple of light brushes at your arm and shoulder and the ground catches you hard.

Monday, we did some kicking and punching drills.  In the first five minutes of class I was sweating hard, and I went through two 24 ounce bottles of Gatorade in 90 minutes.  Wednesday was arnis, and I managed a moderate sweat in an hour of stick drills.  Last night was all joint locks with the nearly 70 year old 8th degree and a student just back from an injury; none of us broke a sweat in an hour of locks, takedowns and chokes, even when we were doing them full speed.

[Mormonheart]

Armin, you missed the topic.

[NightSG]

21 hours ago, Armin said:

You're surely right, but I'm afraid he will remember later again to be one...

All depends on how hard the head hits the ground.

[Mike]

On 3/21/2017 at 4:41 PM, Eowyn said:

My heart is so heavy.

... The great majority come from broken homes (I don't mean divorce, I mean families that shouldn't be raising children at all) and addicts. 

I have felt like you say. I have pondered this very same thought.