Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 11/03/84 (WLS Mods); site astrovax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!allegra!princeton!astrovax!elt From: elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: (public anger .. attacks/harrassment) Self Defense Message-ID: <521@astrovax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 31-Dec-84 16:07:22 EST Article-I.D.: astrovax.521 Posted: Mon Dec 31 16:07:22 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 1-Jan-85 06:18:43 EST References: <343@stcvax.UUCP> <2203@randvax.UUCP> Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics Lines: 23 I am glad to see that a discussion of this topic has finally caught on since I have once or twice tried to start one. Basically I would like to try to refute Jeffrey Snovner's claim that studying self defense techniques is a bad idea because they are likely to be either 1) ineffective because they are not sufficiently mastered, or 2) so effective as to be "brutal" and even "immoral". This is I think the usual fallacy of taking things to extremes; either too much or too little of anything CAN be bad in certain circumstances. In fact, given GOOD JUDGEMENT, any amount of self defense or martial arts skill can be useful (= can let you survive) in some situations. The key here is to realize that this is a complcated world with many possible senarios: Potential victims can be slightly, moderately, or highly trained. Attackers can be armed or unarmed, alone or in a group, drunk or obviously purposeful and competent, apparently intent on simple robbery or known murders (i.e., they have just killed someone else before the victims eyes). Depending on the exact combination of these and other factors in a given situation, fighting can be a very good or a very bad idea, but if you don't know how you don't have the choice. Ed Turner astrovax!elt