Street Fight vs Multiple Attackers (And the Biggest LIE in Martial Arts History)

[These Two Hands]

Part of me still has the dream of just splitting domes open in a multiple attacker fight with a pair of octagonal shaped wooden nunchaku.

I've done it with a hexagonal steel pair before, but it wasn't a nunchaku at the time. It was one of those ones where each end screws into the other to make a short steel baton. It was in the baton form when I did that. Multiple attackers, too. Dropped that guy, kind of jumped forwards and over him to try and get clear, someone snagged my leg, ate pavement, took a kicking. Swinging like a madman with the steel bar still, managed to get away eventually; took a lumping though.

 

[JustinTime]

Y

lol at combat sambo being the origin of mma. It's only one small piece of what is mma today. There is no "complete" martial art. There is only mixed martial arts.

Yeah, that's not what I said. Thanks for putting words in my mouth, I guess. Did you even try to understand me before putting down your point of view? A little "seek first to understand, then to be understood" helps avoid stuff like this. I'm not even mad honestly haha. But...seriously, man?

 

[JustinTime]

I've been told that meteorologists can argue vehemently with each other over a 1-degree difference in their forecasts. And it seems to me that a lot of Internet arguments are people getting very angry about someone having a fairly subtle difference of opinion, with each trying to portray the other as having much more extreme views than they actually have. Normally I'd end that sentence with "...so that they can feel more right." or whatever, but sometimes I think we just have negative emotional reactionary habits.

Tldr: I love you guys.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

Call me crazy, but i agree with the core idea of the vide, step aside, push, keep moving.

- Like this?

 

[n.diazismylife1999]

So this is your logic: I say that you can't properly train for multiple attackers, and the best course of action is seeking to flee,

You say that's false, and of course someone can handle multiple attackers.

I ask for any evidence of this, you can't provide any.

I provide a generic scenario, and ask how could multiple attackers be handled, but you claim it's too artificial so you won't even respond. You say it's too silly.

You say real life is too dynamic to have any sort of plan. But then you claim you can be trained to do so?

So which one is it? Real life is so dynamic you can never have a plan or training? Or you can be trained to handle multiple attackers?

Oh yeah, I forgot about all the ad hominems you throw in, the last vestiges of a moron that has CLEARLY been hit in the head one too many times. I guess it is true that boxers get brain damage - you're living proof!

The reality is that a situation where a person would be in a 1v1 confrontation, or Nv1 confrontation, is already exceedingly rare unless you're still in high school or something. If you happen to live in a bad neighborhood, or are confronted by a mugger, the greatest possibly is that your attacker will be armed.

So training to defend in a multiple unarmed attacker scenario is stupid. The odds are stacked against you, and you have nothing to gain. Unless, of course, you are in a high school fight and want to show how tough you are.

Or will you also argue that you are badass enough to take on multiple, armed attackers too? 3 guys with knives? That's a normal day for n.diazismylife "Jack Reacher" 1999.

Do you think Jack Reacher is based on a true story?

Oh, you want evidence? Okay.

Here:

Here's another:

Proven.

Have you ever trained anything at all? Or are you just slow? In the same way as it's going to be useless to say "okay, my opponent will do X, then he will do Y, then I'll do Z, then he'll do D, then I win" before going into a boxing match against an unknown opponent, it's childish and useless to say that about a "street fight." That doesn't mean a boxing match can't be trained for. Real slow for the slow among us: it just means there's no 1-2-3 magic combination of things you do that works the same for every situation. I didn't think I'd have to explain something this simple on a forum dedicated to martial arts, but...

I've thrown in zero (0) ad hominems -- I'm not surprised that you have no idea what an ad hominem is, though, considering your previously demonstrated grasp of logic.

Multiple attackers is hardly any more rare than a single attacker. Most people go through their lives without ever being attacked. Does that mean self-defense is bullshit and shouldn't be trained? What a silly thing to say.

So training to defend against multiple unarmed attackers is smart, if you want to survive attacks like that.

And yes, obviously Jack Reacher is based on a true story - mine.

 

[Codger]

I'm not sure either of these famous examples are self defence as such. Certainly the second one was a pride-motivated fight. If you didn't have that boxing training you could probably not have got involved in either of them. But having said that, most "self defence" scenarios are like this and often caused by the defender being too drunk or angry or stupid to walk away and I for one am not sober, calm or wise all the time.

Seems to me that decent boxing can win some multiple-opponent altercations. We all seen these videos. What you won't see are videos showing the same thing because BJJ sucks at multiple opponents. I think you can train against multiple attackers in a general sense - you can practice your movement to get a angle on just one, pushing people away, controlling distance etc. It's true that 3v1 is the same as 1v1 + distance management. You can't hit more than one person at a time so the best you can do is to get in a position where you can hit one person without the others being able to hit you at the same moment and then move again. Only a striking art can accomplish this.

The Gracies are selling a couple of lies and one of them is that no MA is any good against more than one attacker therefore BJJ is just as good in these situations but it clearly isn't. The other is the more subtle lie that because BJJ can beat most other styles one-on-one in the right situation/rule-set that it's the "best art" outside of those limits. We've all bought it at some point I'll bet - BJJ can beat a boxer therefore BJJ is a better SD art than boxing.

Is self defence bullshit? I think it partly is if you define it as the ability to defend against situations you could not have avoided any other way because those situations are so rare it really makes no sense training several times a week just in case one happens. I've made it to my mid-40s and it's never cropped up. I've had a reasonable number of fights but never a life-threatening situation where I was sober and uninvolved in the preamble. I've got a temper and I like a drink so I've got myself involved in situations in bars, cars and so on. If you define self defence as being "able to handle yourself" and you think it's worth it then it's not bullshit.

I'd also add that in the very rare occasion where you really do get jumped by multiple attackers who know what they're doing, then merely running may well not be an option. Turning your back on 3 young, athletic dudes meaning you harm isn't always a great idea. They may well chase you down in 20 yards and kick you to shit. You can't always run on a train or in a club etc.

 

[aries]

But almost none of them, that I've seen, involve multiple opponents who break ranks from fear. That may happen in Tom Cruise movies, I suppose, but on Youtube, almost all the multiple attacker fights are won by the defender affirmatively wrecking all the attackers, not by them breaking down in fear and running. It's actually kind of amazing how relentless multiple attackers tend to be, compared to single attackers ... it's like some kind of primal ape thing, once people are in packs, they go super aggressive. This is a big part of the problem. You can't expect them to just go 'derp, moving on' the way that single attacker fights often do after the guy gets injured.

This is true, once the fight starts. However, I've heard/seen of occasions where multiple attackers do back down and that's before a fight happens. Single fighters have been known to bluff out the leader and when he backs down so do the rest.

 

[A Muse of Fire]

Looking at those vids of the guys throwing hands its clear that having one punch knockout power is a good skill to have, as is being the guy that connects with the first punch. Also its good to move in such a way that only one opponent is close to them at a time. . I dunno if that is legally self defense though.

However, there is another gracie breakdown of 2 police in the UK failing to control a suspect who is Ultimately able to run away and escape their hold. that one seems more relevant to BJJ

In my gym we have a sparring drill called " Shark Tank". One person sits in the middle while the others circle around them like Sharks . Most of the time the Sharks take turns rolling with the defender, but sometimes two sharks attack at the same time. I think the focus is about learning to defend and survive in difficult positions in BJJ than win fights in the streets though.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Looking at those vids of the guys throwing hands its clear that having one punch knockout power is a good skill to have, as is being the guy that connects with the first punch. Also its good to move in such a way that only one opponent is close to them at a time. . I dunno if that is legally self defense though.

However, there is another gracie breakdown of 2 police in the UK failing to control a suspect who is Ultimately able to run away and escape their hold. that one seems more relevant to BJJ

In my gym we have a sparring drill called " Shark Tank". One person sits in the middle while the others circle around them like Sharks . Most of the time the Sharks take turns rolling with the defender, but sometimes two sharks attack at the same time. I think the focus is about learning to defend and survive in difficult positions in BJJ than win fights in the streets though.

In that cop video, the guy manages to mount both cops and rape choke them both before running away. It's really pitiful.

 

[anaconda]

Oh, you want evidence? Okay.

Here:

Here's another:

Proven.

Have you ever trained anything at all? Or are you just slow? In the same way as it's going to be useless to say "okay, my opponent will do X, then he will do Y, then I'll do Z, then he'll do D, then I win" before going into a boxing match against an unknown opponent, it's childish and useless to say that about a "street fight." That doesn't mean a boxing match can't be trained for. Real slow for the slow among us: it just means there's no 1-2-3 magic combination of things you do that works the same for every situation. I didn't think I'd have to explain something this simple on a forum dedicated to martial arts, but...

I've thrown in zero (0) ad hominems -- I'm not surprised that you have no idea what an ad hominem is, though, considering your previously demonstrated grasp of logic.

Multiple attackers is hardly any more rare than a single attacker. Most people go through their lives without ever being attacked. Does that mean self-defense is bullshit and shouldn't be trained? What a silly thing to say.

So training to defend against multiple unarmed attackers is smart, if you want to survive attacks like that.

And yes, obviously Jack Reacher is based on a true story - mine.

Oh, I see. First of all, you don't know what ad hominem means. You've littered various insults throughout all of your posts as part of your argument. But, I'm the slow one... Also insinuating that I don't train. Hilarious!

Also, you say you've boxed for 10 years? You've never had a game plan? You don't have strategies? You just go to the gym, hit the bag and leave, right? You're superman! You'll take whatever comes! You don't need a plan.

Please demonstrate how you would train to defend against multiple unarmed attackers. Very clear and simple question. How would you train?

As evidenced by your videos, though, we have a big misunderstanding as far as what constitutes a self-defense situation. Your ideas of self defense are basically related to bar fights. If that's the case, just learn how to box and you'll probably be fine 90% or more of the time. Even with multiple frat bros attacking you.

But even in those two videos, the situations could have easily been avoided. Anyway, it's clear we have a very different approach to this and different opinions. Believe whatever you want and have a nice life.

 

[n.diazismylife1999]

Oh, I see. First of all, you don't know what ad hominem means. You've littered various insults throughout all of your posts as part of your argument. But, I'm the slow one... Also insinuating that I don't train. Hilarious!

Also, you say you've boxed for 10 years? You've never had a game plan? You don't have strategies? You just go to the gym, hit the bag and leave, right? You're superman! You'll take whatever comes! You don't need a plan.

Please demonstrate how you would train to defend against multiple unarmed attackers. Very clear and simple question. How would you train?

As evidenced by your videos, though, we have a big misunderstanding as far as what constitutes a self-defense situation. Your ideas of self defense are basically related to bar fights. If that's the case, just learn how to box and you'll probably be fine 90% or more of the time. Even with multiple frat bros attacking you.

But even in those two videos, the situations could have easily been avoided. Anyway, it's clear we have a very different approach to this and different opinions. Believe whatever you want and have a nice life.

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

But enough vagueness. The point of this article is to bury the reader under an avalanche of examples of correct and incorrect usage of ad hominem, in the hope that once the avalanche has passed, the term will never be used incorrectly again.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. By your own argument, the set of rodents is a subset of the set of mammals; and therefore, a weasel can be outside the set of rodents and still be in the set of mammals."
Hopefully it should be clear that neither A's argument nor B's argument is ad hominem. Perhaps there are some people who think that any disagreement is an ad hominem argument, but these people shouldn't be allowed out of fairyland.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow."
B's argument is less comprehensive, but still not ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. You evidently know nothing about logic."
B's argument is still not ad hominem. Note that B directly engages A's argument: he is not attacking the person A instead of his argument. There is no indication that B thinks his subsequent attack on A strengthens his argument, or is a substitute for engaging with A's argument. Unless we have a good reason for thinking otherwise, we should assume it is just a sarcastic flourish.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic. This does not logically follow."
B's argument is still not ad hominem. B does not imply that A's sentence does not logically follow because A knows nothing about logic. B is still addressing the substance of A's argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic."
B's argument is, most probably, still not ad hominem. The word "evidently" indicates that B is basing his opinion of A's logical skills on the evidence of A's statement. Therefore, B's sentence is a sarcastic way of saying that A's argument is logically unsound: B is attacking A's argument. He is not attacking the person instead of the argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You know nothing about logic."
Even now, we can't conclude that B's reply is ad hominem. It could well be, and probably is, the case that B is basing his reply on A's argument. He is not saying that A's argument is flawed because A knows nothing about logic; instead, he is using A's fallacious argument as evidence to present a new argument: that A knows nothing about logic.

Put briefly, ad hominem is "You are an ignorant person, therefore your arguments are wrong", and not "Your arguments are wrong, therefore you are an ignorant person." The latter statement may be fallacious, but it's not an ad hominem fallacy.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. And you're an asshole."
B is abusive, but his argument is still not ad hominem. He engages with A's argument. There is no reason to conclude that the personal abuse of A is part of B's argument, or that B thinks it undermines A's argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You're an asshole."
B's reply is not necessarily ad hominem. There is no evidence that's his abusive statement is intended as a counter-argument. If it's not an argument, it's not an ad hominem argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic. And you're an asshole."
Again, B's reply is not necessarily ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Fuck you."
Not ad hominem. B's abuse is not a counter-argument, but a request for A to cease the discussion.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you've never had a good grasp of logic, so this can't be true."
B's argument here is ad hominem. He concludes that A is wrong not by addressing A's argument, but by appealing to the negative image of A the person.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you're a moron and an asshole, so there goes your argument."
B's reply here is ad hominem and abusive.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you're a rodent and a weasel, so there goes your argument."
B's argument here might appear on superficial inspection to be sound, but it is in fact ad hominem. He is using the terms "rodent" and "weasel" in different senses to those used by A. Although he tries to make it appear that he is countering A's argument by invalidating one of the premises, he is in fact trying to counter A's argument by heaping abuse on A. (This might also be an example of an ad homonym argument.)

A: "All murderers are criminals, but a thief isn't a murderer, and so can't be a criminal."
B: "Well, you're a thief and a criminal, so there goes your argument."
Harder to call this one. B is addressing A's argument, but perhaps unwittingly.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Wrong! If a weasel isn't a rodent, then it must be an insectivore! What an asshole!"
B's argument is logically fallacious, and he concludes with some gratuitous abuse, but nothing here is ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "I'm sorry, but I'd prefer to trust the opinion of a trained zoologist on this one."
B's argument is ad hominem: he is attempting to counter A not by addressing his argument, but by casting doubt on A's credentials. Note that B is polite and not at all insulting.

A: "Listen up, asshole. All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."
A is abusive, and his argument is fallacious, but it's not ad hominem. B's reply, ironically, is ad hominem; while he pretends to deal with A's argument, in using the term "ad hominem" incorrectly, B is in fact trying to dismiss the argument by imputing that A is resorting to personal attacks.

A: "Listen up, asshole. All rodents are mammals, and a lizard isn't a mammal, so it can't be a rodent."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."
A's argument is sound, and not ad hominem. B's reply is again ad hominem.

A: "B is a convicted criminal and his arguments are not to be trusted."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."
A's argument is ad hominem, since it attempts to undermine all of B's (hypothetical) arguments by a personal attack. B's reply is not ad hominem, since it directly addresses A's argument (correctly characterising it as ad hominem).

A: "All politicians are assholes, and you're just another politician. Therefore, you're an asshole."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument."
If you accept the premises, A's argument is sound. Either way, from the given context, we cannot conclude that it is ad hominem: it's not an attempt to undermine B's (hypothetical) arguments by abusing him, but instead an attempt to establish that B is an asshole. B's reply is ad hominem, since by incorrectly using the term "ad hominem", he is trying to undermine A's argument by claiming that A is resorting to personal attacks.

A: "All politicians are liars, and you're just another politician. Therefore, you're a liar and your arguments are not to be trusted."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument."
If you accept the premises, A's argument is sound; but I think most of us would sympathise with B and class it as fallacious, and ad hominem. This is because we do not accept the premise that all politicians are liars. There is a false premise that lies behind all ad hominem arguments: the notion that all people of type X make bad arguments. A has just made this premise explicit.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "That does not logically follow."
A: "*Sigh* Do I have to spell it out for you? All rodents are mammals, right, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal! What's so hard to understand???!?"
B: "I'm afraid you're mistaken. Look at it logically. If p implies q, then it does not follow that not-p implies not-q."
A: "I don't care about so-called logic and Ps and Qs and that stuff, I'm talking COMMON SENSE. A weasel ISN'T a mammal."
B: "Okay, this guy's an idiot. Ignore this one, folks."
A: "AD HOMINEM!!!! I WIN!!!!!"
Although the last line of B, taken out of context, might look ad hominem (and was seized upon as such by A), it should be clear that taken as a whole, B's argument is not ad hominem. B engaged thoroughly with A's argument. He is not countering A's argument by saying A is an idiot; on the contrary, having logically countered A's argument, and having seen A's reaction, he is arguing that A is an idiot.

 

[anaconda]

"Finally, you don't dictate what my first goal is in any scenario. You're free to be a pussy, of course, and "deescalate."That doesn't mean everyone is a pussy - that's called projecting. But don't worry about it, it's what "self defense" schools are selling these days in our glorious new age of feminization and overall pussification. I don't blame you for swallowing it without chewing, a lot of people have."

First post to me. Instead of coming up with an argument in response, you say I'm a pussy. Nope, no ad hominem there!

"Asking me how I see "that situation going" shows a profound lack of understanding about fighting. How do I see it going? I could tell a story, like you just did, childishly crafting a scenario where everything goes my way and dictating what the fantasy people in my fantasy scenario do"

Instead of responding to what I wrote, you say I have a profound lack of understanding thus it's not worth your time.

I knew the Jack Reacher thing was a bit too complicated for your little brain to handle. Jack Reacher is a fictional character, yes, but fictional characters don't write their own lines, and- forget it, by the time my explanation would percolate through twelve layers of solid bone to reach your walnut sized brain, we'd all be dead of old age anyway."

Insinuating that you would make an argument in response to my points, but I'm too dumb to understand.

"Have you ever trained anything at all? Or are you just slow?"

Insinuating either I have no experience, so my argument is invalid, or I'm just dumb so I don't understand - instead of responding to the points raised.

So let's see - just a few examples where, rather than actually responding to the arguments raised, you insult me or otherwise try to denigrate me. But nope, that's not an ad hominem attack at all!

From your little post above (which again fails to address any arguments): "Put briefly, ad hominem is "You are an ignorant person, therefore your arguments are wrong""

That has been your MO since the beginning. You don't provide any logical argument. Rather, you just say things are so because they are. The first time you responded was to post those videos which demonstrated to me that we have a different opinion of what self-defense entails. Self-defense doesn't mean picking a fight with multiple people and winning - but to you it does.

So good job. I'm sure you're really great in a bar fight.

 

[n.diazismylife1999]

You should re-read my last post until you understand it. Take your time. Twice a day for three years or so should do the trick. I have faith in you!

 

[anaconda]

You should re-read my last post until you understand it. Take your time. Twice a day for three years or so should do the trick. I have faith in you!

The great irony is that your post in no way responds to mine. Again, you attempt to deflect by claiming I don't know what an ad hominem attack is. Your whole arguments in response to mine were "You don't understand anything about fighting, therefore you are wrong." You keep trying to establish that I am either stupid or don't train, and that's why I'm wrong.

Again, my post here (as all my other posts do) directly responds to you and what you are saying. I'm sure your response here will be again to question my intelligence, claim I have no experience, etc and etc.

TBH all your posts have done is demonstrate that 1) You can't distinguish between a bar fight and self-defense; 2) You claim years of training but honestly haven't shown any knowledge or maturity which backs up your claims; and 3) You're a childish asshole.

If those were your goals, then kudos. Otherwise, unless and until you have something meaningful to contribute kindly stay out of the grappling forum. Stick to the heavies where your type of shit is better tolerated and likely not called out as much.

 

[n.diazismylife1999]

The great irony is that your post in no way responds to mine. Again, you attempt to deflect by claiming I don't know what an ad hominem attack is. Your whole arguments in response to mine were "You don't understand anything about fighting, therefore you are wrong." You keep trying to establish that I am either stupid or don't train, and that's why I'm wrong.

Again, my post here (as all my other posts do) directly responds to you and what you are saying. I'm sure your response here will be again to question my intelligence, claim I have no experience, etc and etc.

TBH all your posts have done is demonstrate that 1) You can't distinguish between a bar fight and self-defense; 2) You claim years of training but honestly haven't shown any knowledge or maturity which backs up your claims; and 3) You're a childish asshole.

If those were your goals, then kudos. Otherwise, unless and until you have something meaningful to contribute kindly stay out of the grappling forum. Stick to the heavies where your type of shit is better tolerated and likely not called out as much.

It's not a deflection, it's just a fact, bro. You have no idea what a logical fallacy is, let alone specific logical fallacies, like ad hominem, as you so aptly demonstrated.

And it looks like you don't know what irony is either. Damn, just when you were doing so well.

 

[anaconda]

It's not a deflection, it's just a fact, bro. You have no idea what a logical fallacy is, let alone specific logical fallacies, like ad hominem, as you so aptly demonstrated.

And it looks like you don't know what irony is either. Damn, just when you were doing so well.

I was waiting for that one, too. Logical fallacies, and the definition of irony, are two favorites of the uninformed to pull out when they realize they're wrong.

The fact that your post does the opposite of what it intends, i.e. your post tries to make me look foolish, but instead makes you look foolish and simultaneously proves my point, is in fact ironic.

 

[n.diazismylife1999]

I was waiting for that one, too. Logical fallacies, and the definition of irony, are two favorites of the uninformed to pull out when they realize they're wrong.

The fact that your post does the opposite of what it intends, i.e. your post tries to make me look foolish, but instead makes you look foolish and simultaneously proves my point, is in fact ironic.

Hey, cool, you admit you're wrong, since you pulled out the logical fallacies. Thanks for playing, bruh.

 

[Who's Laughin' Now?]

Multiple attackers is why I always carry extra cole slaw around when I'm wanderin thru da slums of Shaolin....

 

[siidi]

I have been in multiple attacker situation twice in my life. The second one was a gang of six people that attacked me and my cousin. I was smoking a cigarette sitting on pavement and he was taking a leak in a rose bush. So there was no confrontation.

Two of the thugs attacked me, took me down and started strangling me ineffectively while i was screaming whatthefucks. One of the remaining four attacked my cousin clearly very drunk. The others didn't want to do the rose bush thing.

When the two guys realized that i didn't oppose their futile attempts, they gave up the neck squeezing and just held me down, while their friend tried to hit my also drunk cousin. (I had been training MT for a while then and decided this would not end well as a fight) Unlucky for the drunk guy, my cousin had also trained boxing and the fight ended with the attacker leaving after recieving a couple of straights and hundreds of rose spikes. He lost the motivation.

After i've learned a little bit of BJJ i sometimes dream about breaking the two attackers' arms, but after fantasizing i realize that there were still three more. I also wonder if you could use BJJ effectively against multiple opponents when fighting in a rose bush.

 

[anaconda]

I have been in multiple attacker situation twice in my life. The second one was a gang of six people that attacked me and my cousin. I was smoking a cigarette sitting on pavement and he was taking a leak in a rose bush. So there was no confrontation.

Two of the thugs attacked me, took me down and started strangling me ineffectively while i was screaming whatthefucks. One of the remaining four attacked my cousin clearly very drunk. The others didn't want to do the rose bush thing.

When the two guys realized that i didn't oppose their futile attempts, they gave up the neck squeezing and just held me down, while their friend tried to hit my also drunk cousin. (I had been training MT for a while then and decided this would not end well as a fight) Unlucky for the drunk guy, my cousin had also trained boxing and the fight ended with the attacker leaving after recieving a couple of straights and hundreds of rose spikes. He lost the motivation.

After i've learned a little bit of BJJ i sometimes dream about breaking the two attackers' arms, but after fantasizing i realize that there were still three more. I also wonder if you could use BJJ effectively against multiple opponents when fighting in a rose bush.

So the moral of the story is if you're outside, always pee into a rose bush.