the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

B: I came here to learn fighting from you and not for health.

I came to buy shoes, but you sell pets. Who's wrong? Caveat emptor.

But, yeah, if A says he teaches you something to fight, but then says it's only good for health, it's called fraud.

johnwang wrote:A: I teach you MA for health and not for fighting,
B: I came here to learn fighting from you and not for health.

Who is right and who is wrong? Should both A and B make that clear before the first lesson even start?

It's definitely better that both sides are aware of what the other side wants for sure. If a teacher clarifies what he teaches and the student wants to learn something else, either the student can leave, teacher can decide not to teach the student or teacher can adjust and accommodate. Any of those 3 options are fine. It's wrong if student insists on continuing the class if material doesn't match his goals or tries to dictate class material, but it's also wrong for the teacher to keep teaching student materials unrelated to his goal (note this is different from material that will help the student's ultimate goal but may not be what they like). That's just wasting everyone's time. If you run a vegetarian restaurant and a meat lover wandered in, you should suggest he try a vegetarian dish but tell him he has to go elsewhere if he insists on meat. It's wrong to waste an hour extolling the benefits of eating vegetables or for him to demand your chef to cook him a meat dish.

Steve James wrote:I came to buy shoes, but you sell pets. Who's wrong?

A: What will you do if I punch on your face?
B: Come and punch me.

In the above situation, B had never said that he teach "health". If B didn't say, how would A know?