C'mon guys. You're all missing the point, the only realistic way to deal with a zombie is to shoot them in the head. Twice.
My first reaction to it was there must be no laws on proportionate force wherever the creator lives. Either that or they have no knowledge of them.
Really, what it boils down to is the difference between defense and protection. Self defense makes the "defender" wait until something happens, then react to it...when we recall, react, remember, re, re, re we waste time and time is death. In a personal protection mindset, one protects what is personal, and not necessarily the "self". When one protects, one prevents, and prevention is key. One acts, acts, acts...one does not react...and we do not set up pre-arranged both partners cooperating situations...
The difference between defense and protection is principally one of mindset - when the attack is actually "on" (as in this specific case) then that is a semantic argument and also a redundant one
The difference between defense and protection is a mindset that has actual physical consequences in training and action. It is only a semantic argument if we teach people do wait and defend rather than act and protect...there are serious consequences to what we instruct...potentially life and death consequences...I, for one, do not want to be the one who has to live with the fact that I told my students to wait until they are grabbed, hit, etc., and execute a prescribed set of movements from memory, and that caused them injury or death. No thank you! If we are not going to have a martial mindset at the forefront of what we instruct to ensure optimal action as early as possible, then we should not call what we do "martial" anything.
Hmm I'm not sure, it seems that kind of mindset and attitude leaves it open to use 'act and protect' as an excuse just to hurt somebody without actually being in any danger. If you teach people that then they may end up lashing out from what they themselves perceive as an attack and believing they were in the right regardless of whether or not the 'attacker' was actually trying to cause harm. But maybe I've misunderstood.
That isn't how I have been taught self defense at all. Sometimes, if one knows an attack is imminent and cannot be avoided, we are taught to strike first. Defense is protection the way I have been taught. And sometimes that means acting first.
Thoughtful post...what is optimal action? That is the key...optimal is what is appropriate to the situation...that is programmed in with the training.
Show me where ANYONE is arguing otherwise? They aren't so wipe the rabid foam from your mouth and try reading what is actually being put forth Self protection is only 10% physical anyway so screaming "RAWR!! DEATH FROM ABOVE!!WEAPONS!!KILL!! BLOOD FOR THE BLOODGOD!!" is myopic, unhelpful and frankly bollocks Your pre-encounter justification is terrible so I do not hold out any hope for your post encounter articulation
Defense is responding to a situation rather than acting and choosing your course. Some times words are not used appropriately. http://the-difference-between.com/protect/defend My Sensei has a weekly broadcast where many topics are discussed. This is a great topic, if you want to participate, here is the link: Let's have the discussion HERE shall we.
Oh, you didn't... Yeah, you did. Semantic arguments are seldom of any real use in these discussions. People don't adopt these words with any sort of faithful adherence to dictionary definition. The guy who coined the term "self-defense" didn't sit there with a dictionary going "no, that's not what I'm looking for... how about..." "Self-defense" and "self-protection" are used interchangeably by most people I know in this context. If you have a distinction to make, then make it in your own words. The dictionary isn't well tailored to martial arts.
Words have meaning. Just because there are those who do not wish to dig deeper into meanings and how to use words correctly to ensure proper context is set, and proper understanding is achieved, does not mean we should not be precise in our vocabulary. It is not a semantic difference, sorry. Just like saying "self protection" is not the same as "personal protection". Self is a very selfish word; whereas "Personal" relates to what is personal to the person...self, family, friends, community, country??? Depth of understanding can be seen by precision of words used.
It's ironic that you are arguing that words have meaning when you are apparently completely ignoring the meaning of the word 'semantic.'
What is ironic is that semantic means: semantic or semantical [si-man-tik] Spell Syllables Examples Word Origin adjective 1. of, relating to, or arising from the different meanings of words or other symbols: Which I guess goes to the point made before that meanings of words are not meaningful to martial artists?
Yes, hence an argument that one should use 'defend' instead of 'protect' is a semantic argument. No, it does not. It goes to the point that you don't know what you're talking about, up to and including the characteristics of your own argument.