You "do" not say or you did not say? If you're going to criticize others' writing at least try to make sure your own isn't wanting. You still haven't correctly-read the definition of photography, which is creating the image on a sensor not fiddling with it later.
A. That's a nonsensical definition as it ignores 150yrs of photographic history and precedent. And that defines taking a photograph, not photography, there is a big distinction.
B. Running away from the debate yet again - this time using a typo of mine to avoid the facts.
Yes, if someone else has a knife then it's a fight, but that is not what you said. If two people have guns and agree to a duel it's a gunfight. If one coward (this would be your cue to take a bow) ran and got a gun because he was ill-equipped to deal with a consummate fighter, and shot the fighter, this would not be a "fight" but rather a coward shooting someone he was scared of.
I can tell you don't know how to fight because you conduct yourself like a flustered woman. If you were a talented, schooled fighter yourself you wouldn't automatically default to talking about knives and guns at the thought of facing a pro, you would simply meet them on their own terms, because they would be your terms also. The reason you visualize scrambling for a knife or a gun at the though of facing a MMA fighter is because of the "bitchassness" that is in you, rather than any kind of self-confidence being in you. With a weapon is the only way you could have an advantage
Remember what I said about making assumptions tends to make you look foolish. And you couldn't even see the big hole being dug right in front of you before you jumped straight into it.
As it happens I am in fact a ''talented and schooled fighter'' and also taught MAs for many years. I have an extensive background in martial arts and spent a lot of time learning how to defend against armed people, emptyhanded. And we used real knives, chains, swords, coshs etc to train realistically. Blood would get spilled if you weren't good, so you had a real incentive to be excellent.
Using a gun or knife was simply to illustrate, how when there are no rules as in a real fight
, an MMA can be easily beaten.
Anyway you are the one who seems to be the real coward, as you run away from all facts that contradict your silly assertions.
Sorry clown. A true pro who had his eye gouged would just handle it as an injury.
And if there was any doubt about how little you know, now there isn't. Being blinded is not an inconvienience you fight through.
He wouldn't soil himself (as you would) and reach out to dial 911. The only reason eye gouging isn't allowed, genius, is because it can be a permanent debilitating injury, and the idea of MMA is to be as real as possible, but withOUT permanent injury. Same with biting and nutshots. As for "all the strikes" that are not allowed, LOL, all of the strikes are allowed in certain circuits. The UFC used to allow even nutshots, headbutts, etc. Things have softened now, due to regulations, but in many areas they still go on.
See, again you give away your bitchassness. "Save myself" ... LOL ... like a damsel in distress
Not very bright are you and an old fashioned sexist to boot it seems.
If I'm in a fight [where to repeat myself, there are no rules of any kind], I will simply want to defend myself. And I will use any
technique that does the job. That's not cowardice, that's common sense. If someone is bigger and stronger than you [which does make a vast difference, despite the idiot claims by most MAs], you don't think let's play fair and let the best man win, you look after yourself as best you can. Self defence is about being smarter than your opponent and if running away is your best chance of saving yourself do so, particulary if knives are involved. Doing MA only gives you a better chance in a fight, it does not ensure a win
. If blinding someone is your only option of surviving, do it. Only a brain dead moron would think otherwise and if you want to be a macho fool who would rather be dead/beaten to a pulp than thought a coward, be our guest. Fighting is what you do when you have no other recourse. Or if you are an agressive idiot.
I have zero interest in fighting other than from a technical/intellectual/practical point of view and do martial arts for the same reason I do dancing [which you may also think of as being a girly pursuit] I enjoy learning physical skills, though the prettier women in dancing compensate for the lack of adrenaline rush in MAs.
I got my degree in UCLA and I can read and write just fine, thanks. I originally didn't post this thread here to argue but to discuss concepts and get feedback from those more knowledgeable on the subject than I. I appreciate many of the responses I've got, it's just unfortunate that so many are insecure little pissants like you have to keep chiming-in.
Insecure! Anything but I'm afraid. Plus I know a lot about photographic history, which actually tends to contradict your 'concepts', yet you always ignore facts that don't fit with your preconceived notions. Anyone who contradicts you is simply dismissed - Socrates would have been sooooo unimpressed.
Quite frankly I simply do not believe you have a degree in philosophy [from a decent University anyway], as you are appaling at debating, your analogies are not even analogous and you ignore any facts that are inconvienient. You are forevever misreading posts, getting wrong end of stick, losing your temper and being aggresive. You admit you are ignorant about photography and yet seem to have spent a lot of time refusing to learn more about it. You will never learn anything if you keep your eyes shut as you do.
This is about your philosophical level