War weapons

[T'ai Chi]

From the recent commentary:

"We can build weapons that can obliterate entire cities in an instant, though of course we all hope that such awful forces are never unleashed for destructive purposes again."

I would say there definitely are people who hope for this, considering such weapons were created in the first place, and considering plenty of these weapons are still around.

If we "all hope..." we'd round the weapons up and dismantle them immediately and permenently, and stop all future building of them.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
From the recent commentary:

"We can build weapons that can obliterate entire cities in an instant, though of course we all hope that such awful forces are never unleashed for destructive purposes again."

I would say there definitely are people who hope for this, considering such weapons were created in the first place, and considering plenty of these weapons are still around.

If we "all hope..." we'd round the weapons up and dismantle them immediately and permenently, and stop all future building of them.
Fallacy of false dichotomy.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
From the recent commentary:
If we "all hope..." we'd round the weapons up and dismantle them immediately and permenently, and stop all future building of them.

Thank goodness we've solved that problem.

It wasn't nearly as complicated as I had originally thought.

[Torlack]

Please give up those evil nasty weapons that you have been making in secret or I will give you a DIRTY LOOK!!!

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


Thank goodness we've solved that problem.

It wasn't nearly as complicated as I had originally thought. \

It is jprecisely that easy, just no one wants to actually do it. (yet everyone moans about what an evil they are)

Read Russell's 1964 "Last Essay".

[Kopji]

We do not build them for their destructive uses, but their political uses.

They are a foundation of national respect, political power, and prestige.

[Beanbag]

Yes, they are terrible weapons, and it would be wonderful if everyone would simply get rid of them.

Now for the next position statement from the Tooth Fairie...


On a more serious vein, to expect all nations, peoples, and factions to abandon nuclear weapons or chemical or biological weapons would require an implicit trust in their having a "better nature."

There is a wonderful quote from the Notebooks of Lazarus Long, which I will paraphrase here: Never appeal to a person's better nature -- they may not have one. It's far more productive to appeal to their self-interest.

It's in their self interest not to use any such weapons because if they do, then chances are the same weapons will be used against them. Mutual Assured Destruction. Yeah, the whole concept is stupid, but as a Murphey's Law puts it, if it looks stupid, but it works, it isn't stupid.

Of course, this assumes dealing with rational people who have rational wants, needs, and concerns. Religious zealots who believe they have nothing to lose and everything to gain don't factor into the balance equation. Witness the fundamentalist christians in the US that are going over to Israel to support Jewish settlements in disputed territories. They are there ADMITTEDLY to foment discord and bring about a war. Why? Because the Bible requires such a war to bring about a Second Coming and all that Revelations-style mythology.

What I do see that makes me feel (a little) safer is when Libya decides to openly dismantle their nuclear weapons program. Probably had something to do with comparing their situation with that of Iraq, plus the fact that a considerable number of troops are already positioned in the general vicinity on a war footing.

Regards;
Beanbag

[T'ai Chi]

From Russell's Last Essay:
(bold mine)

"Something perhaps, but sadly little in view of the magnitude of the evil. Some few people in England and the U.S.A. I have encouraged in the expression of liberal views, or have terrified with the knowledge of what modern weapons can do. It is not much, but if everybody did as much this Earth would soon be a paradise. Consider for a moment what our planet is and what it might be. At present, for most, there is toil and hunger, constant danger, more hatred than love. There could be a happy world, where co-operation was more in evidence than competition, and monotonous work is done by machines, where what is lovely in nature is not destroyed to make room for hideous machines whose sole business is to kill, and where to promote joy is more respected than to produce mountains of corpses. Do not say this is impossible: it is not. It waits only for men to desire it more than the infliction of torture."

[Hannibal]

But it relies on everyone else thinking the same. We live now in an age when if you turn the other cheek you get the other side of your face smashed in!

Remember, "If you desire peace prepare for war" and the ever popular "It is wise to keep an army for 10,000 days even though you may only need it for one"

What is wrong with a little "chuan" when needed?:-)

[T'ai Chi]

Because this quan has the capability to literally kill all life.

Once that's gone, there probably is no getting it back.

[Kopji]

The commentary stakes out a positive position, contrasting the ability to destroy over the intelligent choice not to do so. This seems an element of grammatic style, rather than an a fallacious or dogmatic assertion that there are no people eager to use these weapons.

Disarming might be the last thing that happens after we intelligently understand, and trust grows at a national level.

[Kevin_Lowe]

If you have the bomb, and the other guy does not, it is sometimes in your best interest to drop the bomb.

If you have the bomb and the other guy has the bomb, it is never in either of your best interests to drop the bomb... if and only if the "guys" involved are power groups associated with fixed geographical areas.

While I'd prefer a world without nuclear weapons (obviously), the next best thing is a world in which all the nuclear weapons are in the hands of power groups attached to fixed bits of the landscape. Fixed bits of the landscape can be bombed in retaliation.

[Hannibal]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Because this quan has the capability to literally kill all life.

Once that's gone, there probably is no getting it back.

Pardon my westernisation error Taiji :)

If you view man as a microcosm of the universe, as many oriental philisophies do, then to kill the world is a magnification of killing an individual. Taken a step further, the taijiquan you practice (or hsing-i, pa-kua, BJJ, JKD or any other number of combat systems you care to pick) is the same as a nuclear device. You can kill with it if necessary, but to be without it robs you of the ability to defend yourself. Remember taijiquan is first and foremost a boxing system not a holistic approach to health.

There is no such thing as a pacifist (i.e. one who will not fight). All you have to do is find out what the individual will fight for. Some just have shorter fuses. In the same way if you do not have the ability to defend yourself all the well meaning, tree-hugging and cod-philosophy in the world will not help you if your antagonist wishes to destroy you.

We operate on consequences in society. I have many urges to give people a good kicking when they spit at me, insult my wife or have committed serious crimes. I do not for fear of retribution on legal (fines/imprisonment), moral (it makes me no better than the scum I deal with daily) or economic (I will get fired, lose my job and therefore money) grounds. To have the threat of mutual oblivion is a similar concept. It is not ideal, but it is here and we have to deal with it.

Bahala Na!

edited 'cos i missed out a line!

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
[b]Do not say this is impossible: it is not. It waits only for men to desire it more than the infliction of torture.Which will only require a complete change in human nature. If we're going to engineer better humans, we could probably give that whole libertarian thing a try. Maybe then it would work.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Kopji
We do not build them for their destructive uses, but their political uses.

They are a foundation of national respect, political power, and prestige.

Oh? I thought they were just phallic symbols. Just another way of demonstrating virility.

But really? claiming they are the foundation of respect, political power, and prestige? Is this accurate? any more accurate than me claiming that they are phallic symbols? Can you please explain how you have come to the conclusion.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Hannibal

Pardon my westernisation error Taiji :)


It wasn't an error. :)

I just prefer and use the Pinyin spellings, except for my user name that is, because I don't think many people know what 'Taiji' is, but a lot have some idea at least of what 'T'ai Chi' is, or many people don't know what 'Yijing' is but a lot have at least some idea of what 'I-Ching' is :) because of more exposure to the Wade-Giles system.


If you view man as a microcosm of the universe, as many oriental philisophies do, then to kill the world is a magnification of killing an individual. Taken a step further, the taijiquan you practice (or hsing-i, pa-kua, BJJ, JKD or any other number of combat systems you care to pick) is the same as a nuclear device. You can kill with it if necessary, but to be without it robs you of the ability to defend yourself. Remember taijiquan is first and foremost a boxing system not a holistic approach to health.


Using my taijiquan, I am not able to kill the world or thousands or hundreds of people with a button press. In fact, I am barely able to kill a single person I believe, and wouldn't even do that except perhaps under the most extreme self defense situation and conditions as a complete last resort where there are absolutely no other options.

Second, I'd challenge anyone to find a case where someone used t'ai chi chuan to kill someone. I've only been practicing for 7 years and have fairly low-level skills, but have met practicioners who can easily defend themselves using t'ai chi chuan without injuring their opponent; they just send them bouncing away. On the other hand, there are numerous examples of bombs, etc. being used to kill and injure. Therefore, t'ai chi chuan is an art of peace, and bombs, etc. are literally sciences of destruction.

Third, I do consider taijiquan a holistic approach to health. :) Besides being a gentle weight-bearing activity that teaches and promotes relaxation, precise movements, coordination, and flexability, a fairly large part health defense is self defense.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Using my taijiquan, I am not able to kill the world or thousands or hundreds of people with a button press. In fact, I am barely able to kill a single person I believe, and wouldn't even do that except perhaps under the most extreme self defense situation and conditions as a complete last resort where there are absolutely no other options.



Sounds like a reasonable rationalization for someone who wants everyone else to give up their weapons first..

I'ts O.K. for a peace loving person like myself to have an A-Bomb.. I promise " I " won't use it, unless " I " know it is necessary.. You can trust me...

[Hannibal]

Not to worry "a rose by any other name..." (not that you smell sweet I might add) ;-)

A question to consider - Should we do away with the Police because people should be able get along together without fear of punishment?

Tai-chi ISN'T a holistic approach to health any more than any other martial system. It is a combat form with health benefits. An practitioner of occidental boxing can be fit and healthy, but that is because the process of learning to dodge, hit and KO makes them that way as a by-product. Tai-chi is no different.

I will concur that RECENTLY no-one has killed anyone with the use of Tai-chi in the same way that no-one has been killed by a naginata or kwan-dao in recent years. That does not make the aformentioned any less lethal.

Tai-chi has many stories of wondrous feats performed by practitioners - some of which are certainly apocryphal. However, the tales of old-school boxers defeating all adversaries - sometimes fatally - are legion. Whether you believe them or not, they illustrate that the original thought behind the forms we now refer to as Tai-Chi were combative. Look at the work of Chang San-Feng (@ 1270A.D. ) who is alleged to have discovered the movements calld "Dim Mak". These are pressure points designed to hurt are heal - even kill - depending upon the intent and whim of the practitioner. Believe these stories or not, they show that they are for fighting first. Again, although descredited as a history, the following shows that Tai-Chi was a combat system:

"One night he dreamed of being taught a special kind of boxing by Emperor Hsuan Wu the Great. The next morning Chang killed over 100 bandits by himself"
Huang Li-chou "Nanlei Anthology"

In recent times there are tournaments to test the combative aspects of Tai-chi. Dan Docherty won the 1980 SE Asia Chinese Martial Arts tournament with a 1st round KO using Tai-chi. Not really the actions of a meditative pursuit! ;-)

This has all been slightly off topic, but worthwhile to illustarte the point I was trying to make earlier - Nuclear Weapons (or Tai-Chi) don't kill people; People kill people. Until everyone learns to "live in harmony" you can be sure I will know how to fight - I just hope that I will never have to.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Sounds like a reasonable rationalization for someone who wants everyone else to give up their weapons first..

I'ts O.K. for a peace loving person like myself to have an A-Bomb.. I promise " I " won't use it, unless " I " know it is necessary.. You can trust me...

No, I'm saying everyone give up their weapons period. If literally everyone does, then no problem. But if a single person keeps theirs, then that is a problem.

I don't have an a-bomb, nor do I want one. :) In fact, I don't want anyone to have them.

[Hannibal]

Tai, you are 100% right in an ideal, wooly, rose-tinted world...but that is not here or now in this one.

I would be great if everyone gave up wealth and worked for the betterment of mankind (like Star Trek) but even then the bloody Ferengi trade and the Romulans wage war.

It would be great if I never had to arrest anyone again because they all gave up crime...but that is cobblers - I will go on duty again on Friday and guarantee I will deal with a piece of criminal filth.

To be honest I think your post was well intentioned by exceptionally naive. That is not always a bad thing to hope for the best, but don't keep your eye on the heavens or you may slip on the pile of dog poo at your feet.

Bahala Na!

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


No, I'm saying everyone give up their weapons period. If literally everyone does, then no problem. But if a single person keeps theirs, then that is a problem.

I agree.. O.K. On the count of three.. Everyone drop their weapons..

Wait ! T'ai Chi, how do I know when you have dropped yours? What if we all drop ours, and you have retained the ability to kill with your hands? Why should we trust you not to?


I don't have an a-bomb, nor do I want one. :) In fact, I don't want anyone to have them.

That was my A-Bomb, and I don't want anyone to have them either.. But it doesn't seem like a good idea to give up mine first..

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Wait ! T'ai Chi, how do I know when you have dropped yours? What if we all drop ours, and you have retained the ability to kill with your hands? Why should we trust you not to?


I never had an a-bomb to drop, so the question of me having dropped mine obviosuly doesn't apply. :p

We all just need to make sure those that had them now don't have them, and we need to make sure (and they need to make sure of us). Yes, it is probably in an ideal world, but one where people favor living rather than inflicting torture. We should be willing to work harder to accomplish this. Retaining your own weapons because someone else might have their own weapons is an anti-thesis to peace.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Hannibal
A question to consider - Should we do away with the Police because people should be able get along together without fear of punishment?


Yes I think but only if everyone really did get along.


Tai-chi ISN'T a holistic approach to health any more than any other martial system.


I respectively disagree and many t'ai chi chuan practicioners of the past and present do too. I think t'ai chi chuan can be and is many things though.

I personally think that it is wonderful for its martial aspects, but that t'ai chi chuan is a way of life, that has its focus on health. You can be a slob and still defend yourself, but you cannot be truly healthy and not be able to defend yourself.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I never had an a-bomb to drop, so the question of me having dropped mine obviosuly doesn't apply. :p

We all just need to make sure those that had them now don't have them, and we need to make sure (and they need to make sure of us). Yes, it is probably in an ideal world, but one where people favor living rather than inflicting torture. We should be willing to work harder to accomplish this. Retaining your own weapons because someone else might have their own weapons is an anti-thesis to peace.

Can you spell ' metaphor '?


The point was, why should we trust you not to use your weapons if we give up ours?

I'm surprised you didn't get it....

[Hannibal]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Yes I think but only if everyone really did get along.

[/b]

I respectively disagree and many t'ai chi chuan practicioners of the past and present do too. I think t'ai chi chuan can be and is many things though.

I personally think that it is wonderful for its martial aspects, but that t'ai chi chuan is a way of life, that has its focus on health. You can be a slob and still defend yourself, but you cannot be truly healthy and not be able to defend yourself. [/B]

No, no,no! What planet are you iving on Tai? Your ideas for "everyone getting along" remain lofty and totally unattainable - let it go because it wil never happen!

And whilst I respect your opinion, the history of Tai-chi Chuan simply does not back up your claims for it being holistic. It is a boxing form - period. Any ancillary benefits are a bonus. When looking at all the supposed theories of founders they all proved their worth in combat - usually through challenges. In many cases they actually absorbed other boxing styles to make theirs more complete. Look at the theories of foundation by:

1)Chang San-Feng

2)Hsu Hsuan-p'ing/ "Boxer" Yu/ Ch'eng Ling-hsi/ Yin Li-heng (the supposed "four schools" theory

3)Ch'en Pu

4)Ch'en Wang-ting

All of these alleged founders were fighters. They may have had a gentle approach to life and fight only when they had to, but they were still fighters. They fought challenge matches and learned other boxing systems. Also why the hell would a form of gentle exercise include sword forms unless it was a foghting art? No, I am sorry but you are wrong.

The notion of Tai-chi as a holistic method of health is peculiar to the 20th Century,usually from people who are totally ignorant of it's foundation. Remember it is one of three - Hsing-i & Pa-Kua being the remaining two (both effective fighting arts.

I know people who can sprint fast, jog for miles and have a far better level of orthodox fitness than me who cannot fight their way out of a paper bag let alone defend themselves so that theory of yours is equally flawed. Fitness and combative ability are not mutually inclusive although a fit person may last longer than an unfit person of equal skill.

As a final thought, and to further illustrate that Tai-chi is combative in approach. look at the tale of oneof the Yang family, "Old" Yang Pan-Hou. He had a match with a Shaolin fighter and after first flooring him, he then faced him again saying "you will now hear the swallow sing" before pushing his fingers into the Shaolin's windpipe and causing him to warble like a swallow as he died.

Very holistic.....:)