The Law Demands Concern for the Enemy's Well-being - And How This Jives With Violent Mindset

Written as part of this thread: https://streetfightsecrets.darkbb.com/general-f3/head-stompswould-you-t1105.htm But became too big and off-topic, so I'm posting it in a more suitable place.

First part of my original post from that thread included because it provedes context.

Quote :

Maybe I should define need.

Chulo's "I don't care about his wellness" is an interesting statement. To the human animal it makes no sense to care about the well-being of the enemy we are fighting. It is an insane concept. But we are schizophrenic fucked up animals. The simplest simplification of all laws about self-defense and violence seem to come down to expressing genuine concern for the safety of the enemy. After softer measures have failed, seeking to take control of him as safely (for him) that you feel that you can risk. If you are honestly trying to do this, then need is the point where you feel that you can not risk taking considerations for the enemy's well-being.

Doublethink, anyone? This will stray somewhat away from the discussion on necessity, but it is related. Mostly it is about "software." It is about a solution to this stuff, because I bet the idea of genuine concern for someone who is trying to destroy you doesn't sit well, beyond the most basic form of it like what Danite was saying. The simplest solution is to be a criminal and don't give a fuck. But then that is illegal and unless you truly put effort into being a criminal it will get you in trouble with the law. We need a solution in line with the law.

Compassionate use of force is an idealistic bad idea, but the law demands it, and will back it up with force. On the surface it seems reasonable. Especially as a demand for the fictional "rational man." To the human animal it is insane and is the exact opposite of good software for effective violence. The law is rarely if ever perfect, but the lines have to be drawn somwehere to at least begin working toward some semblance of order, if nothing else.

People are - by some design - scared of the law. But it is fucked up to be more scared of the legal system than the immediate and potentially lethal or crippling danger presented by the scum in front of you right then and there. IMO health and survival is the primary concern. The law is always secondary. But if done right that should end up as the definition of jusitified force under the law I am subject to, so it is more about getting one's priorities set straight.

So we are moving back to basics. The animal responding to concerns about physical danger. Not all these fucking abstracts that twist minds into unworkable knots. Then we need directness. It is violence, there must be an offensive intent. Yet the guys with guns and dungeous demand that there isn't. How can we be offensive without being offensive? Not necessarily that big of a problem to solve... Both reality and the law are about the tangible output here. So we have freedom to mess with most other parts of it. It isn't about not being offensive. It is about not injuring the guy more than the risk forces you to do. The challenge then becomes getting that to align with the straightforward, intuitive, animal aggression, because the end result of it is the mirror opposite! It doesn't normally make sense...

This is something I've mentioned before. The idea of taking slaves. You are very aggressive, and genuinely don't want to injure the guy, because you need him to be in tip top shape when you sell him on the market. What a nasty offensive idea! Perfect for the old switcharoo we're playing on the animal inside our heads.

This way it might be possible to fully exploit good, aggressive POV inclinations (that we naturally tend toward and that achieving effectiveness demands of us) while at the same time ending up with the complete opposite result - an uninjured enemy (as far as circumstances allow) - that the law demands. Without having to either become a criminal or some kind of social worker attempting to talk our way through a physical fight.

It is of course still subject to the level of risk you draw the line at. How slaving mixes with use of force requirements is something the post in this thread: https://streetfightsecrets.darkbb.com/psychology-f1/cultivating-focussed-violence-t746.htm went more into.

Good off-topic.

The Law must legislate for the whole,it deals with the general mass of people.In this case its intent is to limit the use of violence in society as a whole. If I kill someone because he is an asshole, I should be punished.On the other hand many who are charged with interpreting the law dont have a rats ass idea of what the hell they are talking about.Its a problem I agree, however let people fear the Law and consider it in their actions, fear of consequences is a good thing for people to have.

As well one needs to consider a whole range of issues when one engages in violence.How about remorse? Yes I have heard all the tough talk about " how i dont give a f..k about" this and that.But how many who talk that way have beaten a few people to a pulp and really felt no disgust or remorse at the mere act of doing extreme violence?. Of course if one is in danger then I fully encourage psycho animal behavior, but I find there is far too much lose and easy breezy talk about it.Normal people will find their are consequences to doing violence even if it was justified

Another thing to consider, revenge.Your entire life might be totaly disrupted and changed forever as you now have to look over your shoulder.My point is this.For those who have nothing to lose or who dont care about themselves, then they are freer to use violence, but for those who do have something to lose in life. think about it .My two cents.

Agree with Danite, there are legal limits but I'd like to think moral guidelines too.
...and yup paybacks are truly a bitch.

I agree with Danite too.

Our minds work best when we are trying to do the thing we are doing, and not something else, or the opposite of what we are doing. Hence the post on violent mindset.

The law demands it and generally it is in our best interest if you look at it long tern and large scale, to not harm people more than is actually necessary. But if we apply concern for the enemy's well-being as one of the main factors that go into our use of force - and it has to be a big concern for this purpose - then this is the complete opposite of the violent mindset we are otherwise working on cultivating! Big inconsistency that will either make you too effective, leaving you a criminal who have crossed over the lines with your use of force, or you will be too ineffective and beaten to a pulp by the actual criminal, out of being too concerned with his safety and forgetting your own. Neither of which are good enough.

Reality demands one thing, then the law and social factors demand the opposite. The law might be good or bad, but it is what it is. My agreement or disagreement is irrelevant as there is nothing I can do about it. It is just another part of reality. Much stronger and bigger than me, so I simply have to deal with it as it is. Optimally by following it. That is the plan here.

To feed our fighting, a viscious, violent and destructive state of mind is best. It is what animals do, and what we do. But to comply with the law, we are actually trying to avoid getting the very result that being truly violent would give! See the problem here?

To solve this problem, a vicious and dominating way of thinking that actually feeds and aspires to leave the enemy unharmed seems optimal. Bringing together two otherwise unjoinable components. With that in place, serious injury can be left to where it actually becomes necessary in order not to die or be crippled oneself, instead of our aggressive mindset training and instincts having it pop up unwanted where it would be criminal.

That is what it is about. Using a simple mind-hack to pull excessive force out of the areas where it does not belong.

'Mind hack" - Interesting idea.
It's one of the things I personally find interesting about The Dog Brothers approach, where they connect the aggressive nature inherent in some/many/most humans with the protective instinct, and away from the predatory.
i find their annual public 'Gathering', which was just held on Saturday last, a compelling way to permit aggression and tie it in with the idea of 'tribe'. There is no referee, no judges, 'only you are responsible for yourself' (I paraphrase Crafty's lines here).
The idea is to try to foster this idea of 'the watcher' within each fighter, so they fight full tilt, but have the ability to stop short of lowering their opponents IQ.
This idea that all the fighters are all on the same side, and are fighting to keep each other strong, is a fascinating psychological tool, that I think helps with doing the appropriate 'mind hack' for use in other times of stress and crisis.

Quote :

Compassionate use of force is an idealistic bad idea, but the law demands it, and will back it up with force.

haha! excellent!

I think you can afford to go full bore berserk when the guy is upright, but once he has gone down you really must drill to switch off or at least "reign in the dogs of war"

The slave taking is interesting, was watching a documentary about the aztecs last night who under montezuma's rule would be rewarded specifically for the number of slaves they brought in for sale or sacrifice, their weapons and battle strategies reflected that objective... however Im not sure it provides the "mind hack" you are looking for or even if a true "mental software hack" is necessary

the schism of our brand of self inflicted schizophrenia requires the rational/social worker/ psychologist decision maker AND the inner "Criminal Psychopath"- is it not enough to simply switch between states?

here is my software hack script (aka"the fight between the psycho and the psychologist") in the form of a task analysis

attacker approaches with verbal threat- psychologist

attacker ignores warning and approaches close range- psycho

bash the attacker with no other thought for his safety whatsoever- psycho

attacker goes to the ground...

has the attacker stopped being a threat ?

if yes: psychologist... stop hurting him

if no: psycho... continue hurting him and loop back to last question at regular short intervals until the answer is yes


remember RB its not easy to do serious damage to someone when they are upright and fighting back so you can afford to go "full bore"... once they hit the deck and we start talking head stomps if you are in a psychotic state you will do serious damage

okay mate, you've convinced me

Richard B, I agree fully that when the conclusion has been drawn or forced upon a person that violence is needed for ones well being, then if you are going to do it, then do it.However it is good for a person to think about it, I mean really think about their relationship to violence and try to pre formulate some kind of coherent approach to it.I think Richies break down of it is a good example of that.

The slave taking is interesting, was watching a documentary about the aztecs last night who under montezuma's rule would be rewarded specifically for the number of slaves they brought in for sale or sacrifice, their weapons and battle strategies reflected that objective... however Im not sure it provides the "mind hack" you are looking for or even if a true "mental software hack" is necessary

the schism of our brand of self inflicted schizophrenia requires the rational/social worker/ psychologist decision maker AND the inner "Criminal Psychopath"- is it not enough to simply switch between states?

It's just for high-performance in line with evil instincts (by fooling them), but sublimated so to speak, for the lawyers, as you are doing everything you can to avoid hurting them. Taking slaves AKA subduing safely. But it might be a redundant mess. Not really necessary. People have been fighting each other scince forever without doing this. Simplest road is straight forward. A to B. Attack, then stop when it is safe. Keeping it lean and ergonomic.