Post: #76

How did I miss this, that was awesome. Thin, feminine girl indeed beats up bully with BJJ and knees to the head like prime Wanderlei Silva then takes off sprinting from 'get that girl' teacher. The running from the teacher was the best part, that girl has some moxy. I don't doubt for a second this girl's father is a bad ass and that's where she learned it.

This is actually a very good advertisement for BJJ, truth is that having someone trying to single sweep you and locked on is not an easy situation to get out of for anyone. Then the North South position and two swift knees to thead. Beautiful.

Post: #77

That little prick just got caught slippin. He's a skinny gamer/internet geek who never picked up a weight, shot hoop, hit a baseball, or knuckled up. And she had a dad or older brother that put her in BJJ to protected herself from idiots like him. I see it with my nephew's friends, most have zero athletic ability and even less street sense. If he had some size or strength, he could've just held her off without hitting her and laugh about the whole thing with his boys. But he got got... by a skinny girl in a dress. All caught on video. I think someone mentioned it earlier, she would never pulled that shit with a high school athlete. Throwing water in a girl's face is a bitch ass move as well. His dad probably resembles the guy in the "Mother of 4 repulsed by her husband. His touch "makes my skin crawl"" thread.

But I have noticed that women have been attacking men more frequently lately. That's a problem that needs to stop.

Post: #78

The reason people who stand up to bullies get punished now is because the public school system is a reflection of the state. The state wants to be the sole monopoly on use of force. Bullies get away with it in secret until they fuck up and get caught. Retaliatory force almost always draws a crowd, so defenders almost always get punished the first time they retaliate.

The school system doesn't care about justice. It cares about imprinting on these young future citizens' minds that they are the ones in control. They mete out the punishments.

Doesn't matter the reasons this girl defended herself, in the school's mind she was too effective at using force that should be reserved for their control. In other words she's a rebel, a potential dissident, and that scares them more than bullies, so she has to be made an example of.

Post: #79

Quote:The state wants to be the sole monopoly on use of force.

And it should be, with provisions for self-defense. State monopoly on force is what enables rule of law.

Post: #80

(02-21-2016 10:13 AM)Blaster Wrote:  

Quote:The state wants to be the sole monopoly on use of force.

And it should be, with provisions for self-defense. State monopoly on force is what enables rule of law.

Nope, it does not. Think about all the countries with strong government use of force without rule of law, North Korea, China, many more.

Rule of law is far older than governments. Tribal societies had it too.

The real groundbreaking event is Magna Carta, or the idea that the powerful, in this case the King, puts his subjects on equal standing before the law. That is a revolutionary concept.

Post: #81

Where was Little Dark when this happened?

Post: #82

(02-21-2016 02:16 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  The real groundbreaking event is Magna Carta, or the idea that the powerful, in this case the King, puts his subjects on equal standing before the law. That is a revolutionary concept.

I saw the Durham Cathedral copy of the Magna Carta (made ca. 1300) when it toured Canada last summer. It was truly awesome.

http://www.magnacartacanada.ca/

Post: #83

At least the girl looks like she knows how to handle herself. Has anyone tried showing this in Germany?* Maybe they didn't realise this was an option.


*or will they censor that too?

Post: #84

(02-19-2016 07:44 PM)monster Wrote:  So the story is:
Boy makes fun of girl
Boy throws water on girl
Girl knees him
Girl gets in trouble.

Disregarding gender, this is the society we live in: it doesn't matter if you're the aggressor or not (as the boy was in this case), if you're the one who lays down and protects your boundaries yourself (as the girl did) rather than tattle (to teachers/cops/whatever) then you're the one who gets in trouble. But the one who is passive aggressive and gets under your skin, effectively creating the situation like a little weasel, well they always get away scott free.

Gotta love it.

Lesson learned, if a guy is ever antagonizing you bad enough that you want to beat him up, egg him on by throwing drinks on him, spitting on him, something like that. Either he throws the first punch and gives you a reason to fight back, or he does nothing and looks like a bitch. Win win.

Post: #85

(02-21-2016 02:16 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 10:13 AM)Blaster Wrote:  

Quote:The state wants to be the sole monopoly on use of force.

And it should be, with provisions for self-defense. State monopoly on force is what enables rule of law.

Nope, it does not. Think about all the countries with strong government use of force without rule of law, North Korea, China, many more.

Rule of law is far older than governments. Tribal societies had it too.

The real groundbreaking event is Magna Carta, or the idea that the powerful, in this case the King, puts his subjects on equal standing before the law. That is a revolutionary concept.

I didn't mean "rule of law" as the term of art meaning a king subject to the law, I meant it in the sense of the existence of domestic laws governing everyday behavior of residents. And yes, technically, even for that kind of rule of law, all that is strictly required is universal agreement to abide by the laws. But without a state monopoly on coercive force*, laws can be broken at will and the state can't do anything about it. See: cartels in Mexico.

In this sense, living in a state with an absolute ruler who applies laws consistently, justly, and effectively means you are living with the "rule of law." Although yes, that differs slightly from the historical term. And, of course, state monopoly on force by no means guarantees rule of law. A capricious dictator who changes laws on a whim or doesn't enforce them consistently or justly, would not be rule of law.

My point is that if you don't have government monopoly on force, you aren't going to have rule of law except in the smallest scale where you can count on universal cooperation and low risk of sociopathic behavior. Even a tribe requires monopoly on force to ensure rule of law in its jurisdiction. Essentially, when you don't have government monopoly on force, you get informal customs and codes of honor based on mutual fear/respect, and those codes generally only apply conditionally based on the power relationship in question.

* note that "monopoly on force" doesn't mean that the state is the only one who can ever employ force, just that the state is the only source of legitimacy of force. The state can delegate force and permit force under certain conditions without ceding its monopoly.

Post: #86

(02-20-2016 01:49 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  How did I miss this, that was awesome. Thin, feminine girl indeed beats up bully with BJJ and knees to the head like prime Wanderlei Silva then takes off sprinting from 'get that girl' teacher. The running from the teacher was the best part, that girl has some moxy. I don't doubt for a second this girl's father is a bad ass and that's where she learned it.

This is actually a very good advertisement for BJJ, truth is that having someone trying to single sweep you and locked on is not an easy situation to get out of for anyone. Then the North South position and two swift knees to thead. Beautiful.

Exactly what I said earlier.

I have never seen a girl fight like that, she was cool and calculated with her knee kicks.

I am sure alot of women got joy out of watching that video.

I didn't.