Likes Likes:  2

View Poll Results: Can you kill a human being if needed?

Voters
217. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    194 89.40%
  • No

    23 10.60%
Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 247

Thread: Can you Kill?

  1. #16
    Kimpatsu Guest

    Default Meaning of Bu

    Steve is superficially correct when he writes that the character "bu" means to stop a spear, but it's not meant to be taken literally. The spear represents violence, which includes empty hand.
    I still don't believe in killing, though.

  2. #17
    Sgathak Guest

    Default

    I dont think you need to want/enjoy/train for killing or the the thought there of as your "goal"... HOWEVER... I do feel that there is a responsibility inherent to learning an art which was born in blood shed (despite ANY reason for training in it now). That responsibilty is being, if need be, prepared to use those skills which you have so diligently honed. MUST you use those skills to their ultimate conclusion? Absolutly not, in fact many if not most would say that its the goal itself NOT to use those skills to their extremes. However, if you are not at least PREPARED to use those skills to their ultimate end... What are ya doing? There are better uses of your time if you find martial arts too "martial" for you. Bonzai, Cha-do, oil painting, powerlifting, basketball. Im not saying you ever have to WANT to kill, but if your not even PREPARED (in the mind) to do it if the time comes (Which I sincerly hope it does not) then why PREPARE the body for an eventuality which you wont be able to follow through with?



    J Robbins

  3. #18
    Don Cunningham Guest

    Default

    The second part of my earlier post seems not to have made it online. I meant my comment, "Been there...Done that..." as a metaphor for the importance of desensitization about the victim when using lethal force.

    For the best analysis of why desensitization is important, how our military uses it, and why we are seeing higher gang violence due to it, read On Killing : The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Dave Grossman.

    From my personal experience, I saw the survivors of lethal force encounters exhibit the full range of emotions, from those who cried and obsessed about it to those who viewed it as no different than any other unpleasant task. I even saw those who enjoyed it. Of course, we dehumanized our victims with deragatory nicknames and used training exercises to overcome inherent resistance to such actions.

    Personally, I am concerned that so many seem to accept it but only under controlled conditions. Apparently the Taliban is using such propoganda to generate support for the end of our bombing. Many seemed overly concerned for the civilian casualties in our current campaign. What did they expect? Whenever you have ordinance being used in that quantity, there are going to be persons killed, regardless of being military targets or not.

    During a coffee break discussion recently, one of my colleagues argued that it was inhuman to kill innocent civilians. He stated that they have just as much humanity as any others. His argument was basically that Afghanistan mothers cry just as hard for their children as American mothers. Yet, he was appalled at my reply, i.e., "They don't if you kill the mother first."

    On the surface, it may seem inhuman and cruel. What do you think war is? It is inhuman and cruel. If one is going to engage in it, then one should be prepared for the consequences.

    I think we've entered into a new phase of warring. It has happened many times during the history of mankind. During biblical times, wars were often fought by champions. The troops massed on two opposing sides, then sent their champions in for a fight. This is illustrated in the story about David and Goliath.

    The Japanese were appalled when they first encountered the mongols. They were used to sending out their best samurai, who after announcing his linage, prepared for individual combat. The mongols, though, just shot them full of arrows and rushed the Japanese troops. It must have seemed just as horrific to them as when we watched our own planes crash into the World Trade Center towers.

    It wasn't that long ago when wars were fought by lining the troops up on each side, then shooting at each other until one side broke and ran. In those scenarios, the idea of civilian casualties is outrageous. Yet, we have seen a new enemy and a new kind of assault. It will take a new attitude toward war and civilian death tolls. If we don't adapt to this kind of war and prepare our national will for the associated costs, we may not be able to survive the future. I am just as sad as anyone about this terrible truth, but it can not be denied.

    Sorry for getting on my soapbox and contributing to the thread drift, but I couldn't help it...

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    N. Ft. Meyers Florida
    Posts
    525
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Hey Tony,

    As a Shorinji Kempo man, you must be familiar with the Kongo Zen teachings, which is against killing. Ah, but So Doshin had an interesting past though.....................................

    Once again, the question was could you, not would you want to.

    Thanks for the SUPERFICIAL agreement, but in the case of non lethal mindset, lets remember that Aikido was founded on the beleif that there would never be another war.

    Many of the supposed non lethal "in theory" arts, where pushed to appease General McCarther.

    The Do, became extant, at the expence of the Jutsu.

    Wu or Bu means peace at the price of eternal vigilance.

    Killing is wrong, should be avoided, but beleive in it? You had better, because it surly exists in this world.

    Miyagi Sensei, said, Dont be the one to get hit.
    Dont be the one to hit someone.
    Avoid conflict.

    But, MAN!, he left us some interesting Bunkai, in case the first 3 theories didnt pan out!

    " Thou Shall Not Kill "

    Forgive me
    Steven L. Malanoski

  5. #20
    dainippon99 Guest

    Default

    what is worse? killing an agressor, or losing a loved one?

    remember, you are practicing the very techniques that were developed to take lives by the japanese. budo training gies many things, and i think that one of those things is the mental fortitude to make decisions like killing (but not just that). you also have to remember that this is all talk, only speculation.

    if your not willing to protect loved ones, which is the only reason i could find for killing another, then you should maybe wise up a little, because in this day and age, it might someday come to it.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    123
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    My practice of Budo is centred around the dispelling of confusion and the maintainence of peace. If faced with a situation where eliminating an aggressive individual was the only means to a peacefull resolution then I can say, from this sheltered standpoint, that I would be capable.
    However, I do not believe that this form of crisis resolution is as essential as often as statistics would have one assume.

    Respectfully yours
    Dale Elsdon
    (Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu Bujutsu)

  7. #22
    Kimpatsu Guest

    Default False Dilemma

    Everyone here is guilty of a logical fallacy. You all assume that the only way to take someone down is to kill them. If that were true, the police would have a lot more dead bodies on their hands.
    This is an illegitimate use of the "or" operand. It is not "kill or be killed," it's stay safe by disabling (not killing) the other person.
    Killing is still wrong, no matter how you slice it.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hamilton, Ontario
    Posts
    93
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Re: False Dilemma

    Originally posted by Kimpatsu
    Everyone here is guilty of a logical fallacy. You all assume that the only way to take someone down is to kill them. If that were true, the police would have a lot more dead bodies on their hands.
    This is an illegitimate use of the "or" operand. It is not "kill or be killed," it's stay safe by disabling (not killing) the other person.
    Killing is still wrong, no matter how you slice it.
    I would have to disagree. What we are engaging in here is not about whether or not we think we will kill, or if we think that killing is a good thing. It's about an introspective process. We are examining ourselves (keeping in mind Socrates' claim that the unexamined life is not worth living) to see if we intellectually and emotionally are willing to take a life if necessary. And I think that this is a valuable process, especially when we are learning techniques that can be used to kill. It seems to me that learning how to kill but not specifying when to kill would be irresponsible. If you think you will never ever ever kill, then why learn the techniques?
    No-one here is saying that killing is a good thing. No-one here is saying that they want to kill.

    BTW, you do not really believe that all killing is wrong. Otherwise, you would have starved to death by now.
    Charles Hackney
    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -Hamlet Act I, Scene V

  9. #24
    Sgathak Guest

    Default

    And I think that your guilty of assumption.

    I think that you must be PREPARED for the eventuality however that doesnt mean it is the correct answer in all situations. Many times an attacker can simply be brought to the ground and his attack stopped however do not assume that A) we dont see that as an option and B) that it is the only option.

    Sometimes it simply is NOT an option.

    Example: (since were doing so much assumption here) Assume for a moment that your in a restarant bathroom in a seedier part of town, Your dressed kind of nice and you have a small child with you. Maybe you were passing through and just wanted a quick bite, maybe the kid really needed to go to the bathroom... whatever the reason your there, your both in a small enclosed space. Now let us assume further that 3 rather rough looking individuals follow you into the bath room and pull out knives, maybe a pistol or two. Now further let us assume that these individuals have told you that they want your wallet, the keys to your car, and your watch and wedding ring and just to make sure that they get what they ask for, they say that they are going to take the small child with them and will let him go as soon as they think they have got away (complex situation? Yup. Couldnt happen? Happened to a very distant realtive of mine.) Now what do you do? You can say, Well "I would give them everything" but dont forget they want to take the child. You could say "I would disarm them".. well there are 3 of them and well armed and you have to think about the Child as well. You can barter with them but remember where you are... Will you be safe trying to find help without so much as an ID in a part of town that you not only dont know, but stick out like a sore thumb in? Will the child?

    The only way you can "win" this confrontation is to take out these 3 individuals. Must you kill these individuals? absolutly not. If you can render them all uncouncious, if you can level them them and make it so that ALL 3 cannot continue the fight, AND protect the child you have an obligation to do so. However it may happen that you must use lethal force on at least one of these individuals and not being PREPARED to do just that may end up with your car being stolen, your wallet taken, the child being kidnapped, and you floating in a puddle of your own blood...

    Its not "kill or be killed" it is "respond to the situation with the required force"


    J Robbins

  10. #25
    Kimpatsu Guest

    Default

    In answer to Sgathak, my priority is to ensure I'm never in such a situation. What happened to zanshin? These three individuals must have been waiting somewhere. Why didn't you detect them?
    To Charles Hackney, I offer this quotation from DaiNippon99:
    what is worse? killing an agressor, or losing a loved one?
    That's the logical fallacy right there. I apologise for using the sweeping denunciation, "You're all guilty..." in my earlier post, because that's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I should have written, "Some of you are guilty..." I still stand by my assertion that killing is wrong, though.
    To Steven Malanosk: Yes, Kaiso did lead an interesting life. It was his horror at what he witnessed that led him to incorporate Kongo Zen into SK teachings. "Fusatsu katsujin" ("Thou shall not kill") is still one of the six tenets of SK.
    I'm glad to see this thread has generated so much interest; it's clearly an issue that has been considered by many of the MA practitioners out there.
    Now I'm off to beat some people over the head until they agree with me that violence is wrong.
    Best to all,

  11. #26
    Sgathak Guest

    Default

    Heres the problem with the Zanshin argument... You dont always get to choose your circumstance. While yes its always preferable to pick the safest course, sometimes the course chooses you. Further, a reliance on Zanshin is to my mind, a poor choice. Its a reliance on a tool and further more, a reliance on a perceptionary tool. While yes a study and application of Zanshin (by any name) should be a part of all martial traditions it should never be relied upon solely. As I said, sometimes circumstance places itself upon you. And the only course of action you have is to "deal with it".

  12. #27
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    41
    Likes (received)
    0

    Post

    Don mentioned the book 'On Killing', which I am reading at the moment.

    Even in the introduction the argument is presented that the number of soldiers in WW2 who were actually able to kill the enemy face-to-face when it came down to it was very very low. As I understand it, the rest of the book explores, among other things, the pavlovian-type conditioning which was then implemented in the training of soldiers in war afterwards to allow them to kill more easily.

    These WW2 soldiers presumably believed beforehand that they could indeed kill the enemy (otherwise why would they join up?), and apparently when it came to the crunch, they in fact could not.

    Judging by the poll, a massive majority of E-budo members think they could kill, but I would have to wonder how many of them would act just like the WW2 soldiers, and find themselves unable to take their opponent's life when the chips were down.

    ---------

    I think that most people don't divide cleanly into categories of 'can' or 'can't', however. Once at a self-defence seminar the instructor commented that he had once had a female attendee who said that under no circumstances could she gouge out another human being's eye, not even if her own safety was at stake. However, the instructor constructed a scenario where it was the safety of her young niece that was at stake, and the woman was forced to agree that yes, she actually could attack an agressor's eyes if it was the only thing that would stop him.

    Based on this I would argue that different people in different situations will have varying thresholds and resistance to the idea of killing, but for everyone there will be something they hold dear enough to kill for. In my case, it might be the safety of familly or friends, for another person it might be only familly, not friends, etc.

  13. #28
    Don Cunningham Guest

    Default

    Ruairi,

    You seem to have understood the gist of the book just from the introduction. The author's presentation and research is really great. One thing you might note is when he discusses how soldiers, who have intellectualized the idea of killing enemies and consciously accept the concept, still apparently fired over the heads of troops as a subconscious reluctance to take another's life. I image the woman student you cited would still be unable to kill or maim despite the intellectualization of a scenario such as the instructor presented. Even though she has accepted the necessity to kill or maim, her subconscious is unlikely prepared to support it.

    Your comment about how few forum members really have the will despite all the empty rhetoric is another good example of this. I agree 100 percent. I doubt that most of those who post such macho bravado would really be able to overcome their inherent reluctance in real time.

    Another thing the book's author mentions is how the same inherent reluctance to kill another of the same species seems to be reduced with experience, that is, once someone kills, it becomes easier to do another. I've seen this many times during my reporter coverage of murderers. I recall how they often claimed that once they killed the first person, it was a simple matter to wipe out the other members of the family, etc.

  14. #29
    Keith Mullin Guest

    Default

    It is my sincerest hope that I never have to "test my metal" in this way. As an Aikidoist I was tought from the beggining that the best budo is to simply get out of the way, avoid the confrontation. If that is not possible, to deal with it in a manner that causes the least harm to either party. Minimal amount of force required to difuse the situation. If that does not work and the issue is forced and there was absolutely no other way to solve the situation, I honestly dont know if I would be able to take another persons life. To protect those things I hold dear to me (friends and family) I would hope that I would have the ability to do what was neccessary. Not that I would enjoy killing, quite the opposite. I do not do Aikido to learn how to kill, I do Aikido to learn how to protect myself and those around me, including any would be agressors. Some of you may think that is a "bogus" or "false" conceptoin of the MA, but that is what it is to me.

  15. #30
    Kimpatsu Guest

    Default

    This is turning into one lengthy debate
    Sgathak: I'm not recommending zanshin alone, but sen no sen has to apply sometimes. Zanshin is just like any other technique in your arsenal, and should be used appropriately. Killing, however, is not a technique, it's OTT for self-defence.
    Ruari:
    the woman was forced to agree that yes, she actually could attack an agressor's eyes if it was the only thing that would stop him.
    There's the logical fallacy again; gouging out the eyes is not the only way to stop an agressor. A simple poke will do as well; you don't have to leave someone blinded to protect yourself.
    I'm off to spontaneously combust, now
    Best,

Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. I ask, U Answer, then U ask.....
    By Hekta in forum Budo Fun
    Replies: 3998
    Last Post: 18th August 2013, 07:51
  2. Japan might kill world's only white whale
    By John Lindsey in forum News from Japan
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 13th November 2007, 04:10
  3. Who were the guys who went to kill Stephen Hayes?
    By Wounded Ronin in forum Member's Lounge
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 2nd April 2004, 00:31
  4. Kill Bill
    By aiki-zen in forum Sword Arts
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 23rd October 2003, 01:58
  5. Kill shots?
    By MakotoDojo in forum Ninpo and Ninjutsu
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 26th July 2003, 00:39

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •