Self Defense; Never be afraid again..... EVER!!

[Thriller]

Here is a Guide to get you started on the path to uber badassumness.

Never again be afraid of the man down the ally...
The buglar waiting for you to go asleep
The guy at the office you know wants to kill you....
The giant, supersecrete mind controlling conglomerate trying to take over the world.

Follow the basic steps outlined and you will be able to carry your boastful self with pride and entitelment.


Now for the seriouse part. (well kinda)


Fear is normal, it's healthy, and is an excellent motivator and tutor.

It's not something that should dictate the way you run your life. I know you can't turn on the television anymore without someone telling you the end is near but their just patronizing your baser instincts. (WHo doesn't like a good shot of adrenaline now and again.)

There are many things you can do to help you deal with stress, most of them involve putting yourself in situations where you feel safe and then performing increasingly stressful taks.

I started out kickboxing and kayaking when i was young and they were great tutors in stress management. A million different activities exist out there and each can offer you perspective on your fear. That's why I believe introspection is very important in life.

It is only through yourself that you will no the world and those around you.

Living with excess fear will always cause excess stress. This will shorten your life, leads to bad decisions and/or parnoya. It can make you violent, malvolent, or just plain moody. Also the instability created through the application of stress can been used to manipulate people and also seems to make people manipulate themselves.

So i want everyone here who reads this to take a deap breath, and fixate your thoughts on a a deep calm sliping right past your fingertips.

Then look at this....

[spoiler][/spoiler]

So how do you guys manage your fear and anxeity?

Where would the line be for you to move from diplomacy to violence?

What steps do you guys use to avoid violence when dealing with confrontation?

[Ashu]

Threats against the people close to me would be the closing line on diplomacy in my case.
As for stress management, practice makes perfect. .

[Thriller]

Threats against the people close to me would be the closing line on diplomacy in my case.
As for stress management, practice makes perfect. .

Really?, what if your agressive actions towards the one threating you, were to cause the death the loved one you were trying to defend?.

[Psyko]

So how do you guys manage your fear and anxiety?

I have managed to tamp down most of my fears by facing them in very intense situations. The ones where I managed to come out on top have successfully dampened my fear, though there may still be some hesitation or anxiety it is not full-blown fear any longer. There are very few situations that I was unable to "beat" and I still have some fear, but it is only for a few things (one of them being completely irrational and nothing more than an automatic response to stimuli).

The best thing I have found when fear or anxiety hit is to take deep breaths and focus on the details of the situation. I suppose boxing, kickboxing, and karate have helped me develop those observation skills, and working out or doing strenuous activity allows me to focus on something difficult and menial to clear my head and remove unnecessary emotions.

Where would the line be for you to move from diplomacy to violence?

It depends entirely on the situation. There is a moment in every confrontation when your instincts tell you that things are about to get a lot more intense, and you have to really go with that feeling. The violence will come when there is a serious threat that diplomacy will obviously not solve, or when the other party acts out in violence against me.

What steps do you guys use to avoid violence when dealing with confrontation?

I'm usually pretty good at talking my way out of things. Of course, I'm also pretty good at saying something that gets me into things.

[Ashu]

Threats against the people close to me would be the closing line on diplomacy in my case.
As for stress management, practice makes perfect. .

Really?, what if your agressive actions towards the one threatning were to cause the death the loved one you were trying to defend?.

My aggressive actions would be final and rather convincing. I've been in many situations where a more persuasive voice was needed.

[Thriller]

Ok, so there are some people here who try to keep a level head (for the most part).

I'm going to move this discussion to where i would like it to go.

from Fear to WAR

War is the ultimate breakdown of diplomatic solutions, And the incarnation of Wrath, Violence, and Hatred.

It makes good people to bad things and bad people to even worse things.

Since some of you outlined situations where you accept violence as a solution....
then i would like to know your justifications for war, (if you beleive it can be juistified). Or why you beleive it's not justified.

I'm going to post my george cartoon again because it still applies and is hallarious; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyV1OuJy ... _embedded#!

[Ashu]

War is a show of force.
If you want to kill a country, you do it from the inside, like the American Government did to so many.
If you want to kill a group of people you use a commando strike force.
Against specific masses of people, propaganda and civil unrest.


I don't agree with war. The best way to make your voice heard is a good, well trained army or a few ICBMs.

[Hitchkok]

Fear is the path to the dark side... fear leads to anger... anger leads to hate.. hate leads to suffering.

[Thriller]

Fear is the path to the dark side... fear leads to anger... anger leads to hate.. hate leads to suffering.

Don't moke my attempts to dicuss the darker side of human nature. [soul edit]

[Hitchkok]

oh, i was spot on, and you know it.
anyway, you basic premise:

War is the ultimate breakdown of diplomatic solutions, And the incarnation of Wrath, Violence, and Hatred.

is wrong. or atleast, not generally accepted among most thinkers who havedealt with the subject.
it is generally accepted that "War Is Merely the Continuation of Policy by Other Means" (Carl von Clausewitz). war is a means to an end. we have been taught that it is a last resort, but ample historicall evidence shows this is not the case (WWI, operation "Iraqi Freedom", to name a couple).
and, while (according to Clausewitz) "war is an act of violence pushed to its utmost bounds.", wrath and hatred are not inherent in it. amongst privates and corporals in the front line, sure (why? partly because they need to justify to themselves the violence their committing, but mostly because they are afraid to die. and as Master Yoda so graceously observed, "Fear is the path to the dark side... fear leads to anger... anger leads to hate.. hate leads to suffering."), but not amongst the generals and politicians.
war is a way for man to persue his most basic drives, justified by a coat of heroism and altruism.
freud would have traced it all down to lusting for your mother and hating your father. that or penis envy.

[Thriller]

oh, i was spot on, and you know it.
anyway, you basic premise:

War is the ultimate breakdown of diplomatic solutions, And the incarnation of Wrath, Violence, and Hatred.

is wrong. or atleast, not generally accepted among most thinkers who havedealt with the subject.
it is generally accepted that "War Is Merely the Continuation of Policy by Other Means" (Carl von Clausewitz). war is a means to an end. we have been taught that it is a last resort, but ample historicall evidence shows this is not the case (WWI, operation "Iraqi Freedom", to name a couple).
and, while (according to Clausewitz) "war is an act of violence pushed to its utmost bounds.", wrath and hatred are not inherent in it. amongst privates and corporals in the front line, sure (why? partly because they need to justify to themselves the violence their committing, but mostly because they are afraid to die. and as Master Yoda so graceously observed, "Fear is the path to the dark side... fear leads to anger... anger leads to hate.. hate leads to suffering."), but not amongst the generals and politicians.
war is a way for man to persue his most basic drives, justified by a coat of heroism and altruism.
freud would have traced it all down to lusting for your mother and hating your father. that or penis envy.

It is hard to kill someone that you bleieve has value. Hatred and Wrath are essential motivators to get the grunts in the right mindset for the task. I don't think it's possible rally the troops without demononizing your enemy. Creating that sense of injustice naturally breads both wrath and hatred(from aristotle).

When you said "justified by a coat of heroism and altruism". Your implying that through the use of war you are creating justice. So therefore either a real or manufactured injustice must be proceived to exist for which the waring party is correcting. I agree with aristotle that acheaving justice through violence requires wrath and hatred for the violent solution(war) to manifest itself.

In order to win a war though these baser urges do need to be controlled. Machiavelli illustrates the point best in the Art war.

In war, discipline can do more than fury.

I am talking on the reasons for war, but i think you just illustrating how we win one. In my opinion Saying your only fighting to get x resource or to advance x political agenda is just congnitve dissonance. I think it's more from an inherent love of violence and the prize just justifies the instinct. Hatred and Wrath are the baser emotions the leaders are attempting to satisfy.

[Hitchkok]

[spoiler]

oh, i was spot on, and you know it.
anyway, you basic premise:

War is the ultimate breakdown of diplomatic solutions, And the incarnation of Wrath, Violence, and Hatred.

is wrong. or atleast, not generally accepted among most thinkers who havedealt with the subject.
it is generally accepted that "War Is Merely the Continuation of Policy by Other Means" (Carl von Clausewitz). war is a means to an end. we have been taught that it is a last resort, but ample historicall evidence shows this is not the case (WWI, operation "Iraqi Freedom", to name a couple).
and, while (according to Clausewitz) "war is an act of violence pushed to its utmost bounds.", wrath and hatred are not inherent in it. amongst privates and corporals in the front line, sure (why? partly because they need to justify to themselves the violence their committing, but mostly because they are afraid to die. and as Master Yoda so graceously observed, "Fear is the path to the dark side... fear leads to anger... anger leads to hate.. hate leads to suffering."), but not amongst the generals and politicians.
war is a way for man to persue his most basic drives, justified by a coat of heroism and altruism.
freud would have traced it all down to lusting for your mother and hating your father. that or penis envy.[/spoiler]

It is hard to kill someone that you bleieve has value. Hatred and Wrath are essential motivators to get the grunts in the right mindset for the task. I don't think it's possible rally the troops without demononizing your enemy.
to an extent
Creating that sense of injustice naturally breads both wrath and hatred(from aristotle).
"fear (demonization) leads to anger (wrath)... anger leads to hate.. hate leads to suffering (via war)

When you said "justified by a coat of heroism and altruism". Your implying that through the use of war you are creating justice.
No. I'm saying that this is how it's presented.
So therefore either a real or manufactured injustice must be proceived to exist for which the waring party is correcting.
not neccesserily. in the troops mind, definietly. the politicians? cynical SOBs, the lot of them. watch "wag the dog"
I agree with aristotle that acheaving justice through violence requires wrath and hatred for the violent solution(war) to manifest itself.

In order to win a war though these baser urges do need to be controlled. Machiavelli illustrates the point best in the Art war.

In war, discipline can do more than fury.

and that would be how to win a war, not why do wars start
I am talking on the reasons for war, but i think you just illustrating how we win one. In my opinion Saying your only fighting to get x resource or to advance x political agenda is just congnitve dissonance.
I didn't get this. do you mean that that statement is cognitively dissonant for you, or that anyone stating this is in a state of cognitive dissonance?
if it's the former, well, have fun in your happy little sunshine land. war seldom has justifiable cause. at most, one side is acting in self defense and is reletively faultless. heck, you can't even justify it by practical means. it is a self destructive action, both to individuals and societies (morally and economically). no, the only morall justification for war is fascism (war drives the progress of the human race and so on), or religion.
war is fought for land, for resources, for ego, for so many reasons. none of them is justice
I think it's more from an inherent love of violence and the prize just justifies the instinct. Hatred and Wrath are the baser emotions the leaders are attempting to satisfy..
i disagree. most people very effectively sublimize these emotions.

[Thriller]

I'm not saying war leads to justice and saying all wars are started in the name of it.
The leaders may not beleive that and may know better, but there usally never the ones doing the fighting.

.. and the statement is congnitively dissonante. They may full well beleive it's just about the prize.

[Hitchkok]

I'm not saying war leads to justice and saying all wars are started in the name of it.
The leaders may not beleive that and may know better, but there usally never the ones doing the fighting.

.. and the statement is congnitively dissonante. They may full well beleive it's just about the prize.

being unaware of youre real motives doesn't inherently cause a cognitive dissonance.
a cognitive dissonance is a state in which you rational views colide with your emotions. a state in which conclusions logically drawn from your personal set of values just doesn't seem right.

[Thriller]

I'm not saying war leads to justice and saying all wars are started in the name of it.
The leaders may not beleive that and may know better, but there usally never the ones doing the fighting.

.. and the statement is congnitively dissonante. They may full well beleive it's just about the prize.

being unaware of youre real motives doesn't inherently cause a cognitive dissonance.

I know that. That was my meaning

a cognitive dissonance is a state in which you rational views colide with your emotions. a state in which conclusions logically drawn from your personal set of values just doesn't seem right.

It's subjectively cognitively dissonant from my perspective. Take that analogy as more of a simile than a diagnoses