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