Ungentlemanly like behavior

[Tempest]

I will see your shameless plug and raise you a book recommendation.

'Meditations on violence' by Rory Miller.

Very good book on this subject as a whole. It's where I first learned about IMOP.

Although I think I own a BUNCH of Kane and Wilder's stuff as well.

[MatsuShinshii]

Un-gentleman and un-ladylike behavior, this is 16th Century pompous verbiage, perhaps this was appropriate for those of royal blood and with titles, as dueling pistols and swords where used to settle their differences.

Those that do harm to others without cause, don't deserve anything but un-gentleman like behavior against them.

Perhaps so. Though that's an awful lot of terrible behavior you're proposing to engage in considering the sheer number of folks that harm each other on a regular basis.

But leaving that aside, who are we to say that they didn't have cause? All of the fighting I have done in my life, and I can tell you my opponents thought they had cause plenty of times. I didn't agree, and perhaps society wouldn't either, but that is irrelevant to them at that moment. What is relevant is what sort of behavior YOU are willing to engage in on a regular basis. Or me for that matter.

I know myself well enough to know that while I could live with harming another person if it happened, I would have to be provoked far beyond what is necessary to get me to engage physically with someone, in order to be willing to gouge an eye or certain other tactics. I need a scalable response, and most of those things are not. Keeping it playful, or sporting as the english would say, enables me to choose the level response based on the level of threat.

As the old saying goes, if your only tool is a hammer...

I agree with you. The level of aggression is equal to the level of response.

"The level of aggression is equal to the level of response" sounds good on paper but not possible in reality.

If a person throws a stone at me, then should I throw a stone back?

If someone throws a stone at me, then that person has chosen to do harm to me, my response is to stop that person's intent from continuing, being open to use whatever force to make it possible, being a gentleman or not will have nothing to do with the methods I choose to use, that could include not to be violent or aggressive.

So this is where an in-depth understanding of levels of force is very useful.

Level of force is related to a combination of intent and likely outcome, not necessarily choice of weapons. For example, the standard used by most legal systems in developed western countries is I.M.O.P.

Standing for Intent, Means, Opportunity, and Preclusion

To take your example of someone throwing stones: Are they throwing stones to hit and harm you? or is it just some kids messing around. Those require 2 VERY different responses.

Also Means, Are these actual stones that CAN harm you? Or are they just tennis balls that leave a bruise at the most. Different responses.

Opportunity. Are you within range of these stones? And, Can you get OUT of range easily and safely? Different responses.

Finally Preclusion. Are they throwing stones at you because you are somewhere you are not supposed to be? Are you breaking in to their house? Are you standing on the clearly marked stone throwing range? Different responses.

Even the simplest example, when you add the complexity of the real world to it, becomes undeniably complex and requires more than a simple attack/response drill.

Solid post and excellent points.

[LLLEARNER]

Un-gentleman and un-ladylike behavior, this is 16th Century pompous verbiage, perhaps this was appropriate for those of royal blood and with titles, as dueling pistols and swords where used to settle their differences.

Those that do harm to others without cause, don't deserve anything but un-gentleman like behavior against them.

Perhaps so. Though that's an awful lot of terrible behavior you're proposing to engage in considering the sheer number of folks that harm each other on a regular basis.

But leaving that aside, who are we to say that they didn't have cause? All of the fighting I have done in my life, and I can tell you my opponents thought they had cause plenty of times. I didn't agree, and perhaps society wouldn't either, but that is irrelevant to them at that moment. What is relevant is what sort of behavior YOU are willing to engage in on a regular basis. Or me for that matter.

I know myself well enough to know that while I could live with harming another person if it happened, I would have to be provoked far beyond what is necessary to get me to engage physically with someone, in order to be willing to gouge an eye or certain other tactics. I need a scalable response, and most of those things are not. Keeping it playful, or sporting as the english would say, enables me to choose the level response based on the level of threat.

As the old saying goes, if your only tool is a hammer...

I agree with you. The level of aggression is equal to the level of response.

"The level of aggression is equal to the level of response" sounds good on paper but not possible in reality.

If a person throws a stone at me, then should I throw a stone back?

If someone throws a stone at me, then that person has chosen to do harm to me, my response is to stop that person's intent from continuing, being open to use whatever force to make it possible, being a gentleman or not will have nothing to do with the methods I choose to use, that could include not to be violent or aggressive.

So this is where an in-depth understanding of levels of force is very useful.

Level of force is related to a combination of intent and likely outcome, not necessarily choice of weapons. For example, the standard used by most legal systems in developed western countries is I.M.O.P.

Standing for Intent, Means, Opportunity, and Preclusion

To take your example of someone throwing stones: Are they throwing stones to hit and harm you? or is it just some kids messing around. Those require 2 VERY different responses.

Also Means, Are these actual stones that CAN harm you? Or are they just tennis balls that leave a bruise at the most. Different responses.

Opportunity. Are you within range of these stones? And, Can you get OUT of range easily and safely? Different responses.

Finally Preclusion. Are they throwing stones at you because you are somewhere you are not supposed to be? Are you breaking in to their house? Are you standing on the clearly marked stone throwing range? Different responses.

Even the simplest example, when you add the complexity of the real world to it, becomes undeniably complex and requires more than a simple attack/response drill.

A big thank you Tempest.

If someone throws a stone at me:

My reaction to it will depend on where I am situated, the country or territory or area, am I an intruder.

Who is throwing the stone, children, teens or adults.

To understand the apparent reason for the stone throwing, is this a riot or a street battle.

Were the stones being thrown intended for me or not on a personal level, or just target practice.

Am I responsible for the care and security of anyone with me, children, friends and family or VIP work related.

Do I recognize any of the stone throwers, that might have a personal grudge against me.

Would my aggresive or passive actions escalate or aggravate the situation or not.

Could this be part of a bigger plan, such chasing them and getting caught in an ambush.

First, safety comes to mind for myself and those with me.

Secondly, assess the situation.

Third, make a plan and implement it.

This is similar to my job. I am sometimes in the position to be hit. My first goal is to decide whether this person can actually do me harm. My next is what level of harm. Then I can decided my response. Sometimes it is someone who intends me harm, others it is an older person with dementia and they are scared. Other times it is somewhere in the middle.

My priorities are in this order. My safety. Staff safety. Patient safety. Visitor safety. Property safety. The only person I have a moral obligation to decide about safety is my self. Meaning I can morally decide to put myself in a more harmful position. I cannot morally do that to someone else. If one of my (I say my due to my protective nature) nurses decides to jump in and assist, she can decide. I cannot decide that for her. I also trust myself to evaluate the situation to determine the appropriate level of response, which is key. A dementia patient reaching in a choking manner is likely scared and disoriented as well as easily redirected. Someone committed to an assault is not so easily redirected and demands a different response.

[bushido_man96]

I will see your shameless plug and raise you a book recommendation.

'Meditations on violence' by Rory Miller.

Very good book on this subject as a whole. It's where I first learned about IMOP.

Although I think I own a BUNCH of Kane and Wilder's stuff as well.

I do enjoy Kane and Wilder books as well. I have several of them.

[IcemanSK]

In the means of survival, there's no such thing as "ungentlemanly like behavior", and as you've already mentioned, all's fair in love and war. My life or his life...I choose my life.

As Bruce Lee put in on a Longstreet Episode..."Aren't we animal?!?" Not only will I bite, I'll do everything and anything that's "ungentlemanly like behavior" to the Nth degree without reservation to defend myself. I'll not feel bad about it when all is said and done.

"No first strike!!" It's a model, and one I value. However, yes, however, I'll not only strike first, but I'll do everything and anything, and I do mean everything and anything to my opponent. Nonetheless, I'll only do what I feel is necessary and nothing more.

Mike Tyson has faced the music for biting Holyfield, but I must say that while what he did wasn't gentlemanly like behavior at all. However, I believe that he did what he did because at that very instant, he went in survival mode the best he knew.

This!

[Spartacus Maximus]

In the anecdote about the Tyson-Holyfield fight it was not the biting itself that was despicable. What made the biting reprehensible and condemnable was the situation and context in which it happened: in this case it was a a ring, a sport with rules to which everyone involved was expected to accept and follow.

That is why the biting was “dirty” and Tyson had to face consequences. Outside of the sports and competition context techniques are neither “clean” or “dirty”, legal or illegal. It is quite reasonable to concieve a situation in which a high-risk(to both parties) such as biting might an acceptable thing to do. It might be the only thing to do.

The main point of it all is that responsibility is important. Rather than trying to say which technique is “dirty” or “ungentlemanly”, one should consider general context and behaviour. Intructors ought to know and teach the same. If you compete, you follow the rules, whatever they are. If you have to defend yourself, do whatever you must(not anything you want).

[MatsuShinshii]

A time and a place for everything.

[bushido_man96]

In the anecdote about the Tyson-Holyfield fight it was not the biting itself that was despicable. What made the biting reprehensible and condemnable was the situation and context in which it happened: in this case it was a a ring, a sport with rules to which everyone involved was expected to accept and follow.

That is why the biting was “dirty” and Tyson had to face consequences. Outside of the sports and competition context techniques are neither “clean” or “dirty”, legal or illegal. It is quite reasonable to concieve a situation in which a high-risk(to both parties) such as biting might an acceptable thing to do. It might be the only thing to do.

The main point of it all is that responsibility is important. Rather than trying to say which technique is “dirty” or “ungentlemanly”, one should consider general context and behaviour. Intructors ought to know and teach the same. If you compete, you follow the rules, whatever they are. If you have to defend yourself, do whatever you must(not anything you want).

A well-put response. This is a great summation.