London yoofs

Kurtis

Cheese is greater. 

mo6020

I'm just going to throw this out there...

I can't believe we're on page 5 of a thread about a grown man feeling threatened by a child showing off to his mates and whether it's OK to give them a slap for looking at you funny...

Sporky

mo6020 said:

I'm just going to throw this out there...

I can't believe we're on page 5 of a thread about a grown man feeling threatened by a child showing off to his mates and whether it's OK to give them a slap for looking at you funny...

I reckon we're about a third of the way through. 

mo6020

Sporky said:

mo6020 said:

I'm just going to throw this out there...

I can't believe we're on page 5 of a thread about a grown man feeling threatened by a child showing off to his mates and whether it's OK to give them a slap for looking at you funny...

I reckon we're about a third of the way through. 

*mutes thread*

Kurtis

Probably should have been in the need to vent thread. 

Timcito

mo6020 said:

I'm just going to throw this out there...

I can't believe we're on page 5 of a thread about a grown man feeling threatened by a child showing off to his mates and whether it's OK to give them a slap for looking at you funny...

"Child" vs. "juvenile delinquent thug" - our choice of words greatly affects the rhetorical impact of our message.

hollywoodrox

HMusical_Mystery_Tour said:

Emp_Fab sai

Trust me, there was no misinterpretation of his statement.  He saw a grey-haired old man and enjoyed intimidating me.  I doubt very much he would have even wanted to sit there if I'd been younger and looked like I could flatten him.

To be perfectly honest, thinking that someone's appearance, or age, means they can't flatten him is almost certainly going to end up being a very big, and possibly the last mistake he'll ever make. But, that doesn't help you to know that, so...

If you are likely to feel like such intimidation might occur regularly,  you really ought to consider some self-defence training/martial arts stuff. Having got that myself, I can tell you that knowing you are able to 'handle yourself' tends to make you exude an air of confidence which most of the time means you'll never actually get to the point where you even have to use what you know. People can sense that you know you can take them out if you have to, because you don't give off any signals that you are intimidated when you know you stand a pretty good chance of knocking seven shades of shit out of them.

Now having said that, you are absolutely right to consider the potential for someone having a knife, because they are easily available, can mean unpredictable attacks, and can actually do a lot more damage than a pistol, and that damage can be fatal. The main difficulty in defending against them, is the potential for a large slashing wound to your forearm, which is something that can easily be life-changing regardless of any other slashes or stabs which might follow up such an injury in a repeated attack. Such an injury would certainly end your guitar playing. So in most cases, discretion is probably the better part of valour. and even if you do get threatened with a knife, you are probably best off handing over your wallet or phone; no amount of cash or phone is worth dying for. But if you do have to defend against a knife because you don't have any choice in the matter, a good tactic is an improvised weapon of your own with which you can parry an attack, such as a briefcase, laptptop or similar, then you can deliver your own disabling follow up blow with it (the  throat is a good target to aim for). However, it helps if you have had some martial arts or self-defence training if you you have to try that. As I say, handing over your valuables, walking or running away is a better option if you are not fairly certain that any defence you put up is going to work, and there is no shame in doing that when you think about the potential alternative, but it is as well to be aware that making an exit might not be an option, and should that be the case, what would you do?

Now you might not like the idea of going to some karate school and getting chucked about all over the shop, so a good option would be to do some Tai Chi. And by Tai Chi, I don't mean some new age hippy or wannabe ninja dipshit who thinks they know what they are doing and has set up his own crappy classes, I mean at a proper Chinese MA centre, with an instructor who has been doing it for years and knows what it is really about. The reason I'm suggesting Tai Chi, is because it is a very gentle and (initially) entirely non-contact way to learn self defence in the form of what is also some good exercise, so you don't have to worry about getting chucked about and battered by some ten year old lol and it will if nothing else, improve your fitness. There will be somewhere in most towns where you can do it, and it's not expensive, nor do you need to dress up like Bruce Lee, a t shirt, some pumps and tracksuit bottoms is all you need.

A lot of people have a completely incorrect impression of what Tai Chi is: You may have seen people going through their Tai Chi forms, and not really realised the purpose of that; the real purpose of all those moves, and their regular practice, is to turn those movements into smooth muscle memory, because what all those flowing moves actually are, is blocks against attacks perfected in slow motion whilst maintaining good balance so you don't get knocked down, and this to facilitate the opening up of your opponents front, so you can deliver a follow-up strike, which through constantly doing those form routines, becomes something you can instantly recall and use without having to think about it in a stressful situation.

It's not dissimilar to how guitar practice makes playing something which occurs almost on autopilot, without having to think. So although it looks quite balletic when you see someone going through the forms (and indeed it kind of is), what it does, is make you really good at blocking attacks and staying on your feet, so you can then deliver a finishing counter-attack rather than a prolonged brawl, put the person down quickly, and then either restrain them, or if you prefer, run off whilst they are still down.

You might also be interested to know that although lots of people think that inner chi is something which is just 'mystical bullshit', I can tell you from personal experience that it really isn't; it genuinely is something which allows you to 'wind up' and then explode with a really devastating single blow to someone, which is definitely going to put them down for the duration of a fight and quite possibly hospitalise them, allowing you to make an exit. So aside from all the other valuable stuff doing some tai chi offers in terms of health benefits and confidence and the social aspect of getting out and doing it with a regular bunch of people; if you have any interest in the 'mystical' aspect of such things, it's quite an eye-opener which will surprise you. Trust me, not all of that stuff you see in kung fu movies is bullshit.

Give it a go; I bet you'll like it.

That does sound really interesting actually , plus I do like the spiritual mystical side 
I didn’t realise it was all blocks etc . I’m glad you posted it  , it might make me read up further 

mo6020

Timcito said:

mo6020 said:

I'm just going to throw this out there...

I can't believe we're on page 5 of a thread about a grown man feeling threatened by a child showing off to his mates and whether it's OK to give them a slap for looking at you funny...

"Child" vs. "juvenile delinquent thug": our choice of words greatly affects the rhetorical impact of our message.

I don't care how aggressive they're acting, a 13-15 year old is a child, and while that doesn't preclude them from getting a clip round the ear if they physically attack you, I'd suggest there are better ways of minimising them in a public forum, like the tube, than that.

They really enjoy being dismissed as irrelevant, or laughed at, or treated like children, or even - shock horror - asked if there is something wrong and they'd like to sit down. It's just kids being dickheads, like they have been for millenia.

robgilmo

Kurtis said:

Cheese is greater. 

Timcito

mo6020 said:

Timcito said:

mo6020 said:

I'm just going to throw this out there...

I can't believe we're on page 5 of a thread about a grown man feeling threatened by a child showing off to his mates and whether it's OK to give them a slap for looking at you funny...

"Child" vs. "juvenile delinquent thug": our choice of words greatly affects the rhetorical impact of our message.

I don't care how aggressive they're acting, a 13-15 year old is a child, and while that doesn't preclude them from getting a clip round the ear if they physically attack you, I'd suggest there are better ways of minimising them in a public forum, like the tube, than that.

They really enjoy being dismissed as irrelevant, or laughed at, or treated like children, or even - shock horror - asked if there is something wrong and they'd like to sit down. It's just kids being dickheads, like they have been for millenia.

Again, you're using a term that potentially diminishes the seriousness of an offence committed by a young person. A "dickhead" is, well, just a dickhead! Dickhead, to me, covers petty acts of vandalism and recklessness. It suggests goofiness and stupidity but not violence and malice.

Similarly, calling a juvenile offender a "child" is a rhetorical choice often used to prompt warm and fuzzy feelings in the audience about the offending individual. Children are vulnerable, cute, excitable, 'naughty,' small and physically weak. "Aww, he's just a child." In the US, I have heard the "child" label being attached to 6-foot 17 year-olds, and it very often means someone is trying to get them off the hook. 

Okay, by some strictly legal definition as regards various laws and entitlements, they may, technically, still qualify as "children,"  but there's a huge difference between a 9 year-old and a full-muscled bruiser of 16 or 17, both mentally and physically.  

robgilmo

Timcito said:

mo6020 said:

Timcito said:

mo6020 said:

I'm just going to throw this out there...

I can't believe we're on page 5 of a thread about a grown man feeling threatened by a child showing off to his mates and whether it's OK to give them a slap for looking at you funny...

"Child" vs. "juvenile delinquent thug": our choice of words greatly affects the rhetorical impact of our message.

I don't care how aggressive they're acting, a 13-15 year old is a child, and while that doesn't preclude them from getting a clip round the ear if they physically attack you, I'd suggest there are better ways of minimising them in a public forum, like the tube, than that.

They really enjoy being dismissed as irrelevant, or laughed at, or treated like children, or even - shock horror - asked if there is something wrong and they'd like to sit down. It's just kids being dickheads, like they have been for millenia.

Again, you're using a term that potentially diminishes the seriousness of an offence committed by a young person. A "dickhead" is, well, just a dickhead! Dickhead, to me, covers petty acts of vandalism and recklessness. It suggests goofiness and stupidity but not violence and malice.

Similarly, calling a juvenile offender a "child" is a rhetorical choice often used to prompt warm and fuzzy feelings in the audience about the offending individual. Children are vulnerable, cute, excitable, 'naughty,' small and physically weak. "Aww, he's just a child." In the US, I have heard the "child" label being attached to 6-foot 17 year-olds, and it very often means someone is trying to get them off the hook. 

Okay, by some strictly legal definition as regards various laws and entitlements, they may, technically, still qualify as "children,"  but there's a huge difference between a 9 year-old and a full-muscled bruiser of 16 or 17, both mentally and physically.  

Mentally they are still children, some more than others, we shouldnt forget that when dealing with troubled kids.

Axe_meister

Essentially what we are describing here is what every woman feels, when on the tube/walking home alone at knight.
 

Kurtis

Axe_meister said:

Essentially what we are describing here is what every woman feels, when on the tube/walking home alone at knight.
 

Knights, ah those were the days. 

mo6020

Timcito said:

mo6020 said:

Timcito said:

mo6020 said:

I'm just going to throw this out there...

I can't believe we're on page 5 of a thread about a grown man feeling threatened by a child showing off to his mates and whether it's OK to give them a slap for looking at you funny...

"Child" vs. "juvenile delinquent thug": our choice of words greatly affects the rhetorical impact of our message.

I don't care how aggressive they're acting, a 13-15 year old is a child, and while that doesn't preclude them from getting a clip round the ear if they physically attack you, I'd suggest there are better ways of minimising them in a public forum, like the tube, than that.

They really enjoy being dismissed as irrelevant, or laughed at, or treated like children, or even - shock horror - asked if there is something wrong and they'd like to sit down. It's just kids being dickheads, like they have been for millenia.

Again, you're using a term that potentially diminishes the seriousness of an offence committed by a young person. A "dickhead" is, well, just a dickhead! Dickhead, to me, covers petty acts of vandalism and recklessness. It suggests goofiness and stupidity but not violence and malice.

Similarly, calling a juvenile offender a "child" is a rhetorical choice often used to prompt warm and fuzzy feelings in the audience about the offending individual. Children are vulnerable, cute, excitable, 'naughty,' small and physically weak. "Aww, he's just a child." In the US, I have heard the "child" label being attached to 6-foot 17 year-olds, and it very often means someone is trying to get them off the hook. 

Okay, by some strictly legal definition as regards various laws and entitlements, they may, technically, still qualify as "children,"  but there's a huge difference between a 9 year-old and a full-muscled bruiser of 16 or 17, both mentally and physically.  

The kids we're talking about literally didn't do anything other than, apparently successfully, try and shit Emp up and mess around in the tube. Neither of those are crimes, they are just annoying.

Honestly, I feel like if I have to try and rationalise this further with you i'm going to be wasting my time, so let's just agree to disagree.

Timcito

mo6020 said:

Timcito said:

mo6020 said:

Timcito said:

mo6020 said:

I'm just going to throw this out there...

I can't believe we're on page 5 of a thread about a grown man feeling threatened by a child showing off to his mates and whether it's OK to give them a slap for looking at you funny...

"Child" vs. "juvenile delinquent thug": our choice of words greatly affects the rhetorical impact of our message.

I don't care how aggressive they're acting, a 13-15 year old is a child, and while that doesn't preclude them from getting a clip round the ear if they physically attack you, I'd suggest there are better ways of minimising them in a public forum, like the tube, than that.

They really enjoy being dismissed as irrelevant, or laughed at, or treated like children, or even - shock horror - asked if there is something wrong and they'd like to sit down. It's just kids being dickheads, like they have been for millenia.

Again, you're using a term that potentially diminishes the seriousness of an offence committed by a young person. A "dickhead" is, well, just a dickhead! Dickhead, to me, covers petty acts of vandalism and recklessness. It suggests goofiness and stupidity but not violence and malice.

Similarly, calling a juvenile offender a "child" is a rhetorical choice often used to prompt warm and fuzzy feelings in the audience about the offending individual. Children are vulnerable, cute, excitable, 'naughty,' small and physically weak. "Aww, he's just a child." In the US, I have heard the "child" label being attached to 6-foot 17 year-olds, and it very often means someone is trying to get them off the hook. 

Okay, by some strictly legal definition as regards various laws and entitlements, they may, technically, still qualify as "children,"  but there's a huge difference between a 9 year-old and a full-muscled bruiser of 16 or 17, both mentally and physically.  

The kids we're talking about literally didn't do anything other than, apparently successfully, try and shit Emp up and mess around in the tube. Neither of those are crimes, they are just annoying.

Honestly, I feel like if I have to try and rationalise this further with you i'm going to be wasting my time, so let's just agree to disagree.

My interest in our exchange was less in the specific details of the OP's case and more in the way the language we choose to describe an event shapes our audience's understanding of it.

mo6020

Timcito said:

My interest in our exchange was less on the specific details of the OP's case and more on the way the language we choose to describe an event shapes our audience's understanding of it.

Ah, yes, then in that sense I agree that language is important and I think I chose the right language for the context of the thread. Peace. 

darthed1981

Axe_meister said:

Essentially what we are describing here is what every woman feels, when on the tube/walking home alone at night.
 

Very good point.

bertie

Axe_meister said:

Essentially what we are describing here is what every woman feels, when on the tube/walking home alone at night.
 

agreed, and also FTFY

Kurtis

darthed1981 said:

Axe_meister said:

Essentially what we are describing here is what every woman feels, when on the tube/walking home alone at night.
 

Very good point.

All women are helpless victims? 

darthed1981

Kurtis said:

darthed1981 said:

Axe_meister said:

Essentially what we are describing here is what every woman feels, when on the tube/walking home alone at night.
 

Very good point.

All women are helpless victims? 

Go forth and multiply bro

I'm not claiming to understand what it's like for women in a world where they have to actively fear every man who walks by, who are taking a risk walking home alone, who are "asking for it" if they choose to wear a top that shows their breasts exist.

But I imagine it fucking sucks.