Brian and Dan's excellent philosophical discussion

The following typical threads that plague martial arts sites will get moved here if not just deleted: 1 - My style is better than Your style" - 2 - "Internal & External" - 3 - Personal attacks - 4 - Threads that start well, but degenerate into a spiral of nonsense.

Brian and Dan's excellent philosophical discussion

Postby Bhassler on Sat Apr 02, 2016 11:28 am

.
Last edited by Bhassler on Thu Jun 30, 2016 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
What I'm after isn't flexible bodies, but flexible brains.
--Moshe Feldenkrais
Bhassler
Great Old One
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:05 pm
Location: xxxxxxx

Re: My experience with Chen Ziqiang

Postby Bodywork on Sat Apr 02, 2016 12:53 pm

Bhassler wrote:
Bodywork wrote:Really? Compared to which other.. Great wrestlers...you have tried to throw?
Your assessments and abilities are based on exactly... What?


You are such a self-important fucktard. Don't you ever get tired of yourself?

Tired of standards? No, not really.
Know what I'm talking about and able to back it up? Why, yes.
Self important? No way.
There are many just like me and better than me.

But...
What does any of this have to do with me?
If someone said ___________________ was a great Xing Yi, or Bagua teacher, how would you qualify that?

So here we are... Talking about wrestling, with a video that clearly shows some wrestling. Who is qualified to say who a great wrestler is? How?

Your answer?
Talk about me, of course.
So answer the question. What makes some Chinese Taiji person, now....a great wrestler, too?
Says who?
Oh... If this where I insult you back for some reason or other? Uhm...no thanks.
Bodywork
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1783
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 8:50 am

Re: My experience with Chen Ziqiang

Postby yeniseri on Sat Apr 02, 2016 2:57 pm

I have mentioned this a few times but anyone who knows they can equal or better a certain master, they need to politely request an audience and civilly show skills that are worthy of being an exponent.
That being said, I am shocked that so many people complain than are able to conduct themselves to secure, or put themselves in a way to test the ones they claim are false master, as I appear to understand. That is why I like people like the Amazing Randi! There is $1 million dollars there, free money, as it is, for people to collect but it seems they are afraid of the money. Just sayin' ???

A guide for the perplexed! Moses would be proud of me ;D
Last edited by yeniseri on Sat Apr 02, 2016 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
When fascism comes to US America, It will be wrapped in the US flag and waving a cross. An astute patriot
yeniseri
Wuji
 
Posts: 3034
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: USA

Re: My experience with Chen Ziqiang

Postby Bhassler on Sat Apr 02, 2016 5:12 pm

.
Last edited by Bhassler on Thu Jun 30, 2016 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
What I'm after isn't flexible bodies, but flexible brains.
--Moshe Feldenkrais
Bhassler
Great Old One
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:05 pm
Location: xxxxxxx

Re: Brian and Dan's excellent philosophical discussion

Postby Dmitri on Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:46 am

Bhassler wrote: attacking the person

By what, asking about their experience?

The only personal attacks on that thread were from you, Brian. Go back and read again. Bodywork asks iwalkthecircle on what kind of experience his assessments are based. Bhassler calls Bodywork nasty names.
Last edited by Dmitri on Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Dmitri
Great Old One
 
Posts: 9293
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:04 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA (USA)

Re: Brian and Dan's excellent philosophical discussion

Postby windwalker on Sun Apr 03, 2016 7:47 am

Dmitri wrote:
Bhassler wrote: attacking the person

By what, asking about their experience?

The only personal attacks on that thread were from you, Brian. Go back and read again. Bodywork asks iwalkthecircle on what kind of experience his assessments are based. Bhassler calls Bodywork nasty names.


You dont feel that you should mention that you know "bodywork" your view could hardly be called objective.

You dont know me but seem to be ok with others attacking me with "I have said it before, but you are a racist bigot."
no mention about it, nada

I guess "fucking troll" is more offensive then " racist bigot"
go figure ::)

Is it because you "know him"
is it because in this case you felt compelled to draw attention to an injustice
is because you either agree or disagree but "see number 1"

One of the moderators here also knows me and could vouch for my character but strangely enough declined to comment.
He also knows "bodywork"

The point of the comment "logical fallacies" I have noted seems to be a common tactic used here but rarely called out.

however, if anyone has any doubt that you are utterly full of shit, they can go to any of a number of websites that detail some of the most common fallacies and knock themselves out.

The poster has voiced his opinion, and then challenged anyone reading it to to check it out, decided for themselves.
Last edited by windwalker on Sun Apr 03, 2016 8:05 am, edited 2 times in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 5832
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Brian and Dan's excellent philosophical discussion

Postby Dmitri on Sun Apr 03, 2016 8:09 am

What I say (in this respect) has very little to do with whom I know or met in person. I'm looking at what people actually write. At least I try to.

"You are a racist bigot" is pure ad hominem, no question about it. What they perhaps meant was "what you wrote was racist bigotry". There's a fundamental difference between these statements.

As for "not commenting" -- I don't have a set of "commenting rules" or a list of people to whom I respond more than to others.
Last edited by Dmitri on Sun Apr 03, 2016 8:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dmitri
Great Old One
 
Posts: 9293
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:04 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA (USA)

Re: My experience with Chen Ziqiang

Postby windwalker on Sun Apr 03, 2016 8:11 am

yeniseri wrote:I have mentioned this a few times but anyone who knows they can equal or better a certain master, they need to politely request an audience and civilly show skills that are worthy of being an exponent.
That being said, I am shocked that so many people complain than are able to conduct themselves to secure, or put themselves in a way to test the ones they claim are false master, as I appear to understand. That is why I like people like the Amazing Randi! There is $1 million dollars there, free money, as it is, for people to collect but it seems they are afraid of the money. Just sayin' ???

A guide for the perplexed! Moses would be proud of me ;D


You might try reading a little more about the Randi test.

There have been some credible people who declined to challenge due to the
conditions of the test one being that anything proved
to be real becomes the property of the tester.

Placebos play an important role in research as controls to test the efficacy of medical interventions; a pill or procedure can only be considered effective if it works better than the placebo. But should placebos be part of actual treatment? Is a doctor who prescribes a sugar pill – even if it works to lessen symptoms – technically deceiving the patient? - See more at: http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2012/05/0 ... lIWdT.dpuf

http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2012/05/0 ... treatment/

Some of the studies for this are being conducted at Stanford the reading is very interesting.
I happened to meet one of the researchers in a local coffee shop. After finding out what her studies where on, they where using an noted acupuncturist at the time I mentioned my own work.
I pointed at her arm, she was startled at having felt what we would call the "qi" we both laughed at the plcebo" effect...
Last edited by windwalker on Sun Apr 03, 2016 8:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 5832
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Brian and Dan's excellent philosophical discussion

Postby windwalker on Sun Apr 03, 2016 8:20 am

Dmitri wrote:What I say (in this respect) has very little to do with whom I know or met in person. I'm looking at what people actually write. At least I try to.

"You are a racist bigot" is pure ad hominem, no question about it. What they perhaps meant was "what you wrote was racist bigotry". There's a fundamental difference between these statements.

As for "not commenting" -- I don't have a set of "commenting rules" or a list of people to whom I respond more than to others.


And yet you did comment, with out a disclaimer mentioning that you've met him in person
I do not see how one could conclude that your comment was not based on this relationship.

while not commenting is not.

in each case the poster was attacked and offensive language was used.

To be clear in your example, can you point out anything that "I" wrote that could be considered as such?
Be suggesting this in your example your indirectly implying that I have or did write it. I find it dishonest.

Or do you mean what he should have said was that he felt the clip was an "example of "racist bigotry"



To which I would agree to a point, but could also point out where "the doctor of common sense" views come from
having said this I felt the points he made where relevant to the topic at hand. As I mentioned he is so over the top I found it funny.
Last edited by windwalker on Sun Apr 03, 2016 9:14 am, edited 4 times in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 5832
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Brian and Dan's excellent philosophical discussion

Postby Bhassler on Sun Apr 03, 2016 9:05 am

.
Last edited by Bhassler on Thu Jun 30, 2016 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
What I'm after isn't flexible bodies, but flexible brains.
--Moshe Feldenkrais
Bhassler
Great Old One
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:05 pm
Location: xxxxxxx

Re: Brian and Dan's excellent philosophical discussion

Postby Steve James on Sun Apr 03, 2016 9:13 am

"You are a racist bigot" is pure ad hominem


Only when it is used as an argument. Someone's argument is not wrong "because" the one arguing is a racist or a bigot or a "friend." Someone we like can be wrong, and vice versa. Of course, it also depends on what one is claiming to be right or wrong.

Afa this ongoing thing between Dan and some others, I'd say that it was more a matter of the way attitude is perceived online. Hey D, I know that you remember the Mike S. stuff from way back in alt-rec-martial arts ;) I've never met him or Dan, but they're probably both nice guys. At the same time, their style of making their points can irritate some people, in particular those they haven't met. Oh well, it's the internet, and it shouldn't be taken seriously.

Now, personally, I always wanted to know if Mike and Dan had ever met and what they thought of each other's work. It was interesting to hear. In a way, I was hoping they'd agree. Again, oh well. Everybody seems to say the same thing about what "it" is, "who" has it, and "how" one can tell.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 15779
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Brian and Dan's excellent philosophical discussion

Postby windwalker on Sun Apr 03, 2016 9:20 am

Steve James wrote:
"You are a racist bigot" is pure ad hominem


Only when it is used as an argument. Someone's argument is not wrong "because" the one arguing is a racist or a bigot or a "friend." Someone we like can be wrong, and vice versa. Of course, it also depends on what one is claiming to be right or wrong.

Afa this ongoing thing between Dan and some others, I'd say that it was more a matter of the way attitude is perceived online. Hey D, I know that you remember the Mike S. stuff from way back in alt-rec-martial arts ;) I've never met him or Dan, but they're probably both nice guys. At the same time, their style of making their points can irritate some people, in particular those they haven't met. Oh well, it's the internet, and it shouldn't be taken seriously.

Now, personally, I always wanted to know if Mike and Dan had ever met and what they thought of each other's work. It was interesting to hear. In a way, I was hoping they'd agree. Again, oh well. Everybody seems to say the same thing about what "it" is, "who" has it, and "how" one can tell.


coming from you its pretty rich considering

what I wrote :Only until this is addressed I dont see a way that any one would be able to take a reasonable approach.


your response:
So, you don't see how anyone could be reasonable. Ok. Can reasonable people act unreasonably? Are you trying to convince people to act that way? Cuz, in my mind, unreasonably means anything goes. I think terrorists act unreasonably. Anyway, I'd bet you'd say that any suggestion you made would be reasonable, iyo. Right?


I would agree that you seem to use this very well...

carry on
Last edited by windwalker on Sun Apr 03, 2016 9:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 5832
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Brian and Dan's excellent philosophical discussion

Postby Steve James on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:56 am

Well, if you actually made an argument, then I might consider some of the things I said ad hominems. I.e., you've stated positions on a group, and I've disagreed that the whole group should be condemned. In logic, you're arguing from "particular to general." That's a basic fallacy. It's like me making a case about all Americans because of what some of them do. It's what the people you condemn do, as well. Fortunately, not all of them.

That's for the logic part. The bigot part (since I'd never call you a racist) is simply a description. Google the definition.

Anyway, not to get too far off off been there done that territory, arguing about the way a person argues is also NOT an argument. That, in fact, is arguing "to the man." So, no matter how rude or brusque that Dan or Mike S. might come across, what matters is the argument that they make. They can call each other fakes and assholes till the end of time. They might both be right in their own way, and that's fine. Yeah, I think it'd be better for everyone if people didn't have personalities, but it's silly to take things personally.

Afa tcc is concerned, I'd hope that everyone gets what's best for them from it. I'm not too interested in the principles. Afa Americans, otoh, I am concerned; and I argue from that point of view. So, I really don't care what anybody calls me.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 15779
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Brian and Dan's excellent philosophical discussion

Postby windwalker on Sun Apr 03, 2016 11:57 am

Well, if you actually made an argument, then I might consider some of the things I said ad hominems. I.e., you've stated positions on a group, and I've disagreed that the whole group should be condemned. In logic, you're arguing from "particular to general." That's a basic fallacy. It's like me making a case about all Americans because of what some of them do. It's what the people you condemn do, as well. Fortunately, not all of them.

That's for the logic part. The bigot part (since I'd never call you a racist) is simply a description. Google the definition.



wow your right, I did look it up I would never call you a bigot, but you fit the definition pretty well.

Well, if you actually made an argument, then I might consider some of the things I said ad hominems. I.e., you've stated positions on a group, and I've disagreed that the whole group should be condemned. In logic, you're arguing from "particular to general." That's a basic fallacy. It's like me making a case about all Americans because of what some of them do. It's what the people you condemn do, as well. Fortunately, not all of them.


getting old.

Where did I condemn them as a group, at most I've said its understandable,
cool, on the net one can pick and chose what one posted as such dispite the fact that they do it. Its a tactic which you seem to know and do very well.
Just as your doing now "kudos" ;)

I've posted this before it sums up pretty much my view points.
Prejudging an individual by their group identity (or presumed group identity) is not only unethical, it is blatantly irrational, since group identity reveals absolutely nothing about a person. Every individual should be judged only on the basis of their own words and deeds.

Treat the ideology with caution and candidness. Treat the Muslim as an individual.

Don't judge Islam by the Muslims that you know, and don't judge the Muslims that you know by Islam.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages ... slims.aspx

Anyway, not to get too far off off been there done that territory, arguing about the way a person argues is also NOT an argument


agree but when it is used to discredit or call ones character into question I would think it would be fool hardy not to notice it.
In you posts I did what was suggested awhile back by the OP feeling that some how you and others where not really being honest or forthright.
In looking up what "logical fallacies" I was quite intrigued as now I could understand intuitively I only felt.

your good, not worth talking about,,,,as you've mentioned
Last edited by windwalker on Sun Apr 03, 2016 12:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 5832
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Brian and Dan's excellent philosophical discussion

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Sun Apr 03, 2016 12:37 pm

To be clear, I was the one who called you a racist bigot. Steve has a very narrow definition of racist, which I think also still includes anyone who votes (as that action, along with spreading misinformation and inflammatory rhetoric clearly affects peoples' livelihoods). I said it because I felt it my duty to stand up against the thinly veiled hate you consistently post on here. Of course, you generally hide behind statements such as "it's not *my* opinion, I'm just sharing it," or other excuses. An initially slippery tactic, but also an eventually transparent one. If you could string two sentences together, maybe I would have bothered to debate you in a meaningful way. Instead, I am simply voicing my objection to your actions (I think it's unfortunate and perhaps telling that more don't do the same) and calling you on your BS. Here, you are trying to cry victim, which is equal parts typical and ridiculous.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Next

Return to Been There Done That

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest