Specific verbal self-defense techniques

[ozarque]

For the record: I appreciate the attempts at providing me with wiggle room, but can't accept them. I really do believe, with all my heart, that violence is never -- never -- justified or acceptable for me. The modification you suggest, with violence acceptable as a last resort, is the classical "just war" doctrine; I don't accept it, not for myself.

I can admire Panther for being able to say unequivocally that if his (her?) belief were that something is morally wrong, he would never do it. Period. I cannot meet that standard.

But there is no hypocrisy in saying that I believe violence is never justified but that I cannot give my word that I would never violate my belief. Every time I lose my temper, I have violated my belief, you perceive, in spite of my sincere intention not to do so.

That is honesty, not hypocrisy.

Suzette

[ozarque]

About Rory's question regarding different perceptions of verbal conflict in two different cultures.....

I can't answer the question sensibly without a missing piece of information. I need to know whether we are talking only about two cultures or about two different _languages_ -- and if it's two languages, I need to know which ones they are. The answer is not the same for bicultural-but-monolingual as for bicultural-and-bilingual, and the answers vary from language to language. You can send me the information by e-mail directly to me at OCLS@madisoncounty.net if you prefer, and then I'll post an answer here.

Suzette

[ozarque]

About _listening_ as part of verbal self-defense....

Scattered through the postings on this thread are several things that can be answered together. There is the suggestion that listening is a major component of verbal self-defense, with more listening than talking taking place in many situations. There is the question about how you can _know_ when the problem facing you is life-threatening rather than just bluster. There is the question about how can you know when the potentially violent person is truly at the point of violence.

The statements about listening are accurate. Unless you listen with your full attention to the person you're interacting with, no other verbal self-defense technique can be relied on. You can only get accurate data -- to find out whether you're under attack, what kind of attack it is, and how much force would be needed to counter it -- if you let the other person speak his or her mind completely while giving your full attention. (Often the listening alone will defuse the situation, because the person's problem revolves around the fact that nobody is willing to listen.)

However, listening for verbal self-defense involves more than your ears. Giving your full attention means _observing_, with all your senses, while someone talks. It means listening totally, not with half your mind on something else. If the interaction isn't on the telephone (where hearing is the only sense available to you), full attention means observing the color of the person's skin, the size of the person's pupils, the rate of breathing and eye-blink; it means watching for signs of body language that indicate severe stress; it means watching for any deviation from what you know about the person's language behavior under non-stressful circumstances. It means observing every last detail. It means paying attention to the way the person smells, for example. It means paying attention AS IF it meant life or death -- with that sort of awareness.

This is only hard work, by the way, when you're not used to doing it. If you practice, it becomes automatic and you will do it easily.

When you pay total attention to the other person in this way, you can almost always rely on your intuition -- your gut feeling -- to tell you whether the possible threat is bluster and pretense or genuine, as well as to let you know when the storm is just about to break. Empathy, which is the product of full attention, will tell you.

For much more material on this subject, go to the literature (on or offline) in the journals for trial law, under the topics on evaluating witnesses and jurors; try looking under "voir dire." See also the work of Paul Ekman and of Peter Blanck. Finally, for material on judging emotional state by voice alone (as on the telephone) go to the literature on air and space medicine.[The literature of neurolinguistic programming offers a great deal of information of this kind, but varies widely in quality. Information by John Grinder is always reliable.]

Suzette

[Panther]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ozarque:
For the record: I appreciate the attempts at providing me with wiggle room, but can't accept them. I really do believe, with all my heart, that violence is never -- never -- justified or acceptable for me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must say that standing by your belief and conviction so staunchly has my complete admiration.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

The modification you suggest, with violence acceptable as a last resort, is the classical "just war" doctrine; I don't accept it, not for myself.

The obvious next step from your non-violence belief is obviously a non-war belief... I can completely understand this extention and your dedication to it. The logical extension of this, however, would be that the U.S. entering WWII, sending my uncles and Daddy to fight the Nazis and the Japanese Imperial Army in an effort to stop things like Dachau and Nanking... would be morally wrong. So, I admire you for sticking to your beliefs, but really find the whole "concientious objector" disbelief in any war (even a defensive or "just" one) disheartening. Many people who claim the same views have had no qualms about spitting-on and calling my friends (who were permanently disabled to protect their precious rights to live in freedom) "baby-killers"... That's more than disheartening.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

I can admire Panther for being able to say unequivocally that if his (her?) belief were that something is morally wrong, he would never do it. Period.

I'm too old, seen to many wiggles and been through too much to sacrifice my very own spirit/soul by being unfaithful to my own standards and beliefs. That wasn't always so. In fact, I guess you could claim that as the reason why I'm so picky about whether something is "just" or not... I could understand someone's view that my interpretation and wording are merely convenient "wiggles". But I sleep soundly with my convictions as I'm sure others do with theirs.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

I cannot meet that standard.

I certainly couldn't meet the standard set out by your original statement(s)... and from your own admission, neither can you (or my friend).

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>But there is no hypocrisy in saying that I believe violence is never justified but that I cannot give my word that I would never violate my belief. Every time I lose my temper, I have violated my belief, you perceive, in spite of my sincere intention not to do so.

That is honesty, not hypocrisy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I admire you for your honesty.

On the other hand, Since you have basically said that my assertions that the word "never" is being either misused, misunderstood, or misplaced aren't correct, then let's refer to Merriam-Webster as I did with the word "never", which means "not under any condition".

Merriam-Webster says:

hy·poc·ri·sy: hi-'pä-kr&-sE: noun
a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

I guess it's open to interpretation, but that seems to say the definition is asserting a belief and then not following that belief.

Then again, I'm sure I could change it to provide enough wiggle room, depending on what your definition of the word "is" is...

[LenTesta]

I am going to make a new post on this subject (Specific Verbal Self-Defense Techniques). Then I looked back into the previous posts and found this thread.

The fact that this topic evolved into a discussion about moral values is the issue here. If anyone wants to continue with that theme, please use this thread. I will start another for Specific VSD techniques.

I think that Suzette was right for trying to start the process of a VSD Kihon that all of us can use to practice, but somehow the subject of the thread was diverted and the rest is history.

So I am pulling this out of moth balls to point out that another thread wil be started to get the specifics of VSD training spelled out for the common Martial Artists.




------------------
Len Testa

[gmattson]

I thought it might be interesting to re-read Suzzette's last thread before leaving. Everyone was on their best behavior and I believe she was making headway. One of the areas where she felt our group was at odds with her method of teaching, was the use of non-violent and to us, comical situations of potential conflict. She used these examples so none of us would have our feelings hurt by having her quote controversial passages on our forum.

Her reasoning was in line with what Van is saying about "rehashing" a post that might have hurt someone's feelings. Suzzette felt we should have been able to learn from her simple examples and on our own, transfer the knowledge to our own posts.

Whoever said something that was insensitive would probably end up trying to justify having said it, while the person/s that were verbally trashed would be lashing out at the offender. Obviously not a good forum for sharing and learning.

I agree with Van that we probably should avoid picking on any individual's quotes, but I don't see the harm with pulling general type statements out of context and evaluate how different people might interprete them.

We might go back to some of the older posts, and pull out some statements that might be inflammatory.

We might also build a list of statements that should be avoided at in posts.

I have quite a few suggestions which I'll post once we get started.

Best,
George

[jessica08]

That's really a nice idea to know verbal self-defense. I don't know it yet

[gmattson]

Important subject. Pleased to see it has been resurrected and some new readers involved.