What is wrong with this picture?

[Mulan]

How very insightful.

Take it up with Lao Tzu

[Mulan]

He wrote on muggers and burglars?

Ahh, you need to be more specific in your quotes. That was actually Geoff Thompson ("Dead or Alive," chapters on "Attackers and Their Rituals" and a whole other chapter on how you are generally not assaulted if you act aware of your surroundings... ie: petty criminals don't like confrontation, being detected, or people who are ready and alert)

[Mulan]

No missy, you need to be more specific with your quotes. You never once mentioned Geoff Thompson, instead you rambled on about Lao Tzu.

Mugging is a confrontation, no?

Aren't we defensive... I never mentioned Lao Tzu or Geoff Thompson in that post. You quoted the entire thing, most of which had to do with the Tao Te Ching, which was (arguably) written by Lao Tzu, so I went off that. O.o

Burglary and pickpocketing is a bit different from mugging. Burglary and pickpocketing (or stealing purses, etc) is the one that usually wants to be undetected and completely nonconfrontational. That's why in my post I said muggers tend to be more inclined to violence than the former. However, muggers also don't want to be revealed, so often even saying "don't I know you?" can scare them off. They are non-confrontational in their own way: they go after people who seem like easy victims and who they could scare into easily giving them what they want. If the person hesitates, starts questioning them, or gives them other trouble that either delays, compromises the anonymity, or endangers the physical wellbeing of the mugger, they more often than not take off. That should not be counted on, though, and it is better to be prepared for the worst case scenario, or the minority of muggers who are willing and able to be aggressive.

[Mulan]

So you didn't mention Lao Tzu in the next post and you weren't rambling about one of his writings?

I talked about his writings in the first post. I mentioned him in reply to you because I assumed that you quoting me talking about his writings meant you had a problem with what he said. Or, rather, a problem with what I said, so I clarified that I am quoting a book and elaborating on Taoist philosophies.

Snatching an old lady's purse isn't a confrontation?...You can't really question somebody when they've got a knife to your throat or are pummeling you into a bloody pulp...If you’re relying on their good intentions than you’re a fool.

I said it's a different kind of confrontation. They are not threatening or harming the lady. The majority pickpocketing takes place with the victims being completely unaware of it - that is the type of pickpocketing I'm most directly referring to. If they are pummeling you, then you are dealing with the aggressively violent minority. Most muggings are done by anxious teens or early 20's who just want easy money fast, not professional criminals. Though they might wave a knife around, they typically have no intention of harming anyone. They are very skiddish, but also potentially panicky and apt to act brashly - including causing harm in the heat of the moment. I never said anything about relying on their good intentions, I was simply pointing out statistics, at least as they were presented in the Geoff Thompson book. Yes, you have to prepare for the worst and never let your guard down, but that doesn't mean you have to ignore statistics. If you're alert, aware, prepared, and not doing something very stupid (taking the "short cut" through Central Park at night), it's highly unlikely you'll be assaulted anyway... at least by somebody you don't know.

I really have no idea what you're trying to get at. Either you're going off preconceived notions of what you think I mean, or you're just looking to provoke an argument for the hell of it.

[Mulan]

You're going on and on about something I'm not even talking about.

[Broadsword2004]

It's a quote from the Tao Te Ching, the book that serves as the foundation of Taoism and all Taoist-based martial arts schools (Tai Chi Chuan, Bagua, Hsing Yi, others).

"Under heaven nothing is more soft and yielding than water.
Yet for attacking the solid and strong, nothing is better;
It has no equal.
The weak can overcome the strong;
The supple can overcome the stiff.
Under heaven everyone knows this,
Yet no one puts it into practice." (Verse 78)

"The living are soft and yielding;
the dead are rigid and stiff.
Living plants are flexible and tender;
the dead are brittle and dry.
Those who are stiff and rigid
are the disciple of death.
Those who are soft and yielding
are the disciples of life.
The rigid and stiff will be broken.
The soft and yielding will overcome." (Verse 76)

It is in part referring to the adaptability you mentioned, but also the yin-yang idea that it is counter-productive to use force against force. If somebody comes at you with yang (direct force), you react with yin (yielding, redirecting). A rigid oak breaks against strong winds while a mere reed bends and endures. And, on a more philosophical tone, it is the acknowlegement that rigidity is the nature of death while softness is the nature of life.

I wasn't serious about going up against a burglar in a ninja outfit, but I disagree, I think for most people it would be a lot freakier than a gun. People are used to guns, but swords are more visually threatening and more primal. Also, a burglar would likely run if you just plain confront them unarmed. Most house burglars don't plan on and avoid all confrontation. Street muggers tend to be more violent, but even they are more likely to run if you are uncooperative. However, it's best to be prepared for the violent minority. I hate guns, so I would never get one. That's a personal prefference, though, and I'm for the right to bear arms and all that (swords, knives are arms too).

I C; I'd have to disagree with you on the swords part though; people are not used to swords OR guns usually; either one can freak them out.

[Mulan]

And what would that be, missy?

Reading into things that aren't there and acting like a spoiled kid who has no clue how to hold a mature discussion just wants to pick fights with everyone he meets.

[Mulan]

My main problem with you is that, most of the time, you're impossible to have a rational discussion with because you're just plain rude and start off any argument with a personal attack. Not just with me, you do this with everyone. It gives off a condescending impression that you don't care what the other person has to say. You pidgeonhole people, particularly females (I believe there are several posts throughout this and other forums commenting about you having a screwed up opinion of women and their motivations), when in reality you don't know anything about them. You also like to put words into other people's mouth by twisting their argument to fit your preconceived notions of what they're trying to say. It's just irritating and frustrating because I have to say the same thing several different ways before you get it through your head.

So you didn't say that snatching an old lady's purse was "completely nonconfrontational". If that's telling me that it's a difference kind of confrontation than I guess hell's frozen over.

Snatching somebody's purse without them noticing is completely nonconfrontational, yes. I would say that even snatching somebody's purse and running is pretty nonconfrontational. By confrontation I mean intentionally prolonged threatening interaction with the victim above and beyond what is necessary to simply scare the average person into forking over their money, and/or going out of your way to use aggressive/excessive force against the victim. Snatching purses when victim is unaware, snatching purses without harming the victim, and waving a knife around without it making contact with the victim would fit under that definition of nonconfrontation. This is what happens in an average case of pickpocketing and mugging in an average city.

Don't you love it when somebody who's never had to keep their guard up tells you to “never let it down”? Do you have any idea of how psychologically exhausting it can be to keep your guard up constantly. In fact keeping it up constantly puts you in a state in which you are unable to put it up thus defeating the whole purpose of having a guard in the first place.

I always keep my guard up (at least when I'm outside) and it's not draining at all, it's energising. By keeping your guard up I did not imply that you have to be pathalogically paranoid or jumpy and ready to tear out the throat of anybody that looks at you funny. Rather, I meant what I originally stated: don't make yourself a target, always be aware of your surroundings, know where you are, look all ways, there's safety in numbers, don't drift off and be alert.

Why is the concept that ARMED ROBBERY is a violent act is so hard to grasp? If you mug somebody you have already accepted and made peace with the fact that they may violently resist you. If you mug somebody you've probably spent some time on the street and know that if you want to win you escalate furthest and fastest. So if somebody attempts to resist and you've got a knife you're going to kill him or her or at least put them in the hospital.

That is entirely an assumption. Motivations and types of muggers and pickopockets vary. While what you say is certainly true for many, it is not true for many more. Criminals are human, and treating them as sub-human or super-human is a big mistake. According to the interviews presented in "Dead or Alive," there is a considerable precentage of muggers who are very much not prepared to escalate a conflict or cause anybody serious harm... they just want to scare you, and if that doesn't work or something goes wrong, they run before they're found out. This in no way means they are noble or have good intentions. Their intentions are to rob you and get away unscathed physically and legally. The last thing they want to do is risk leaving physical or intellectual evidence.

There are many muggers that don't care about any of that and are batshit insane off drugs or the knowledge that their boss will do something worse to them if they fail. There are many different kinds and motivations of muggers. I never said that you should treat criminals in any way, actually. Your concern should simply be to get away unharmed, and how to do this varies from situation to situation and has much to do with what kind of mugger you are facing. According to Geoff Thompson, the biggest part of these confrontations is the psychological component - controlling your own fear (ie: advantageous adrenaline) versus gauging the nervousness of your attacker, determining whether the situation will escalate into the most primal split of fight or flight.

You clearly haven't spent too much time in dangerous places have you? If you spend allot of time there than you'll get assaulted sooner or later.

I've lived in urban centers all my life. I've lived in Brooklyn, I certainly spent enough time in Mahattan, Bronx, Queens... granted, not Harlem, heh. I spent much time on college campuses and downtown St Paul and Minneapolis. Naturally, the same goes for everyone I know and all but one of them have never been assaulted. Where is this mugger wonderland you speak of? What kind of "dangerous places" are you talking about? Either you're overestimating the amount of crime out there or we've all been doing something very right. The one guy I know who did have a confrontation with an armed criminal was because he worked at a store that was being robbed. By his account, the robber was very friendly towards him even while he was being held hostage, but warned that if he didn't cooperate he wouldn't hesitate to hurt him. Either way, the guy didn't carry a bad memory from that experience. He was probably lucky.

In some ways "the streets"(tm) are a lot safer than what many make them out to be, in other ways they are a lot more dangerous. A lot of this has to do with who and where you are, but what I talk about is a general overview of non-organized petty crime, not what it's like to live in the most gang-ridden parts of the ghetto.

[Mulan]

Look, I'm not here to have a pointless argument with you. I have already said everything I needed and it is there for those that want to read it. My opinions are based on my expriences in Italy (only been assaulted in any way outside of the US), on my knowledge of my friend's experiences, on self-defense books, on news stories, and on textbook statistics. Yours seems to be based on rants you pull out of your ass. What more can I say.

[medic06]

I feel so awful for breaking up Mulan's little fantasy party; this makes me sooo much worse than a violent criminal who “really doesn’t want to hurt you”.

Now this is reality;


A while later;

Wow, you really demolished her. I like the way you used her posts completely out of context to support your own circular logic. That'll teach her to stay out of theoryville, USA

[Mulan]

Would you tell others how to use a hammer and nail if you yourself have absolutely no idea? If not than why are you doing that here? You don't know shit about the streets, so telling us about them stooopid.

I'd rather heed the advice of trusted authorities on the subject than some guy on a forum with attention issues, thanks. And no, you twisting what I say doesn't change that others can see what I actually said, it just means it's pointless to argue with you.

Have you even stopped and considered the potentially lethal consequence that would arise if somebody asked a mugger “Don’t I know you”?

I'll use this as an example. Anybody else reading my statements wouldn't think that I am advising people to say "don't I know you?" to muggers as your first line of defense and expect them to run away. How you picked up on that is sheer bafflement to me. It is, however, a real life example of something victims have in all honesty said (ie: they thought they recognized the guy/girl) and which resulted in the criminal leaving them alone. What this means is not that you should act out a premeditated script at a criminal, but that those criminals had a fear of being recognized and did not choose to harm the victim to prevent this from happening. You can think what you like but these are real cases and them's the facts. Same goes for the numerous cases of victims thinking of ways to stall, which resulted in the criminals (who were not willing to spend a prolonged amount of time on the encounter) bailing. That doesn't mean it will work for somebody else in another situation. The only advice I gave, and one that holds true for any situation, is to be on guard which I already explained to mean being alert and aware of your surroundings, including potential exits and peripheral props (broken glass, chairs, lead pipes, what have you). Also, the realization that any confrontation has a large psychological component - not just the criminal's, but most prominently your own (ex: being able to use fear/adrenaline to your advantage).

[medic06]

I really don't know why you would worry about someone who can't tell the difference between a mugger and a pickpocket

[Tom Yum]

You wouldn't mind if I actually asked you to support that accusation or is it just too much to handle? Any moron can hurl accusations it takes somebody with a brain to back them up.

So why did have to come by and help out Mulan?

She seemed to be doing ok on her own.

And you wonder why there are so few females on this board...lol.

[Mulan]

(HandtoHand)

All the things you just quoted actually support themselves so there's no real point in my elaboration on them. It is a good example of why you're not a very good debater, though. You seem to lack either reading comprehension or the ability to formulate a logical argument... possibly both

[medic06]

You wouldn't mind if I actually asked you to support that accusation or is it just too much to handle? Any moron can hurl accusations it takes somebody with a brain to back them up.

So why did have to come by and help out Mulan?

I really don't have to support anything, it seems that everyone but you can comprehend what she is trying to get across. If you need support, read your own posts.

But, if you really must know, in a nutshell your argument is this:

"You'e an idiot because you think all criminals are do X, Y, and Z. You can't put all criminals in a neat little box."

And then you go on and say "REAL MUGGERS do X, Y, and Z." So now, all of a sudden you just weakened and/or destroyed your first argument with your second.

Then you attack her because she used the word "confrontation". It's a poor choice of a word; situation or incident would problably be better. Now you are attacking her based on semantics, which is relevant only in Theoryville.