I don't go around stomping people or dreaming about it lol. And i'm not obsessive about it. I wouldn't (and didn't) soccer kick some random idiot who got drunk over his wife being unpleasant. But i would (and had) "do as much damage as possible and leave the scene ASAP" to someone who attacked me with a purpose to cause harm. And that is the only right way to go about it if you want to minimize your risk of being injured or killed (and that risk is too high even if it's low). I'm a realist, not a maniac. P.S. anger management is for other people (i hope saying that isn't against the rules lol) Yes, it is..
Yeah, like former Marines like me. I like my life much better now than I have learned to deal with some of my "anger" issues. And trust me, I had some serious ones.
[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scaling-Force-Dynamic-Decision-Violence/dp/1594392501/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1361394289&sr=8-2"]Scaling Force: Dynamic Decision Making Under Threat of Violence: Amazon.co.uk: Rory Miller, Lawrence Kane: Books[/ame] Well worth a read, IMO.
That's a foolish and incorrect statement. Not every aggressor has the same reason for attacking you and understanding each type of aggressor will help you control the situation uch easier. http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1074386708&postcount=10 If a driver cuts you up the chances are he's just had a bad day and you are in the wrong place at the right time. If you gesture to him and get out of your car and a figh starts, stomping on his head will get you a police record (or worse). You have an approach that will one day land you in a heap of trouble.
Therefore, your post is contradictory; From your previous posts, it sounds like you are just ranting without actual experience IMHO
Cail - MAP is a family friendly site. Tone down the language please, otherwise we may have to take disciplinary action for breach of TOS.
I actually had a similar situation growing up. I was one of the few white guys in my high school area and so I found that there were certain techniques that were useful for fighting off men of color. I don't mean to start a racial argument by the way, I'm just saying that because of my black opponents' greater bone density, I had to use techniques that could fend them off without hurting myself (i.e. punching to the skull directly would only hurt my hands, for example). But yeah, for me using effective and simple techniques was the way to go whether fighting against white men or people of color. (It does help to know about the difference between racial body types, though.)
Yes, in comparison to caucasians, some African Americans are born with or develop greater bone density. This has been figured out through studies in kinesiology and other movement sciences.
share your studies then. personally, i think it's nonsense. i think it goes back to the whole "blacks were bred to be slaves" ignorance. but share your information and it will help me determine whether it's ignorant or not.
Source? Sounds like nonsense to me. Reminds me of the nonsense theory of boxing at the early 20th century when they said to hit "coloureds" in the gut because their heads were so hard they didn't feel head blows in the same way
Oh look, a discussion on racial body types . About as legitimate as discussing body type based on the width of fingernails, because race really is just superficial appearances. It has nothing to do with bone density, muscle fiber ratios, etc..
It's not like our skulls are squishy and vulnerable, though, is it. I think you might be exaggerating the benefits... immensely.
My source had come from an African American author whose name I can't currently remember. She conducted a study proving that some blacks have greater bone density and a higher ratio of muscle-to-bodyfat than caucasians do.
Oh? Sounds like an individual who set out with an agenda in their scientific pursuits. Sounds legit! Here is some better information, more will be coming but this is a difficult topic to Google correctly because of all the ignorance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
Found this just now: Personally, I don’t agree with the study. Firstly, what is black and what is white? Many ethnicities have dark colored skin, so again what is black? Likewise, many ethnicities have white or light colored skin, so what is white? Also, using the term “Caucasian” seems quite outdated, I think its stems from an old disproved theory that “white” people (whatever that means) originated from the Caucasus. Caucasians are specific to one geographical area, the Caucasus, and I can quite easily find very dark skinned and very light skinned Caucasians.
Here is another quite lengthy article discussing the subject, mentioning also the adverse effect this "African American's are superior physically" has had on this portion of the population in the U.S.. Skip to the bottom for "Concluding Remarks" if you don't want to look over everything. http://www.science.smith.edu/exer_sci/ESS200/Raceh/Raceh.htm
A whopping 402 people! They really went all in on that study didn't they. Didn't even bother to run any tests in unison with other states and different populations. Seems legit.
Here's another decent article from the American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" written (May 17, 1998). It discusses how just the term "race" and how what it is associated with doesn't really mesh well. (Like bone density) http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm