Some thoughts on the forum

Ive been on this forum for a while now with my attendance varying from season to season. A few common themes have emerged and are constantly reappearing over and over again.

1) Many many people have little understanding of logic. Fallacious arguments riddle the board. A fallacy is an error in reason. Example: There couldnt be anything wrong with Mick-Kwon-Do- Its really old (Argumentum ad antiquitatem)! Please read up on some basic reason and logic. It raises the level of debate of the board as a whole,
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html


2) Essentially a science vs. religion argument constantly rears its head with one party looking for empirical evidence and the other relying on faith, belief etc. Faith has no place on a discussion board. Faith kills discussion. Its the ultimate conversation stopper. If you make claims at something being fact then expect people to want proof. Otherwise dont make claims on the interweb. Just like intelligent design is idiotic anti-science there is much of the same bullshido in the martial arts world. Lets again raise our intellectual levels please.

3) Following up a request for a specific thing with an attack on that thing is unwanted, unhelpful and idiotic. Example:
Person-A: Id like the location of a TKD club please.
ultimatecageLeGeNd: MMA totally ownz TKD. TKD is ****!!!
If ultimatecageLegend thinks theyre doing the MMA community (what the hell is the MMa community) a favour- theyre not. Youre making people commit my next cardinal sin.

4) Lumping people into boxes is useless. There is no boards.ie MMA conspiracy. Insulting the MMA community is pointless. It doesnt exist. There is a strong group of people on boards.ie who have set views on training methods but the resemblance ends there! They train old and new martial arts. Self defence and sport. Japanese and Western.
Example:
Complainer1: For gods sake. The guy just asked for a TKD club and now the whole MMA community are jumping on board. OMFG theyre such a shower of hijacking pimping etc.
There is no community and just because some arse represents a common viewpoint with other members of the board doesnt mean they represent a community. They could well be an angry 13 year old who just discovered martial art A.

5) Separate the martial art from you. Theyre different. You should be able to logically debate training methods and fighting without getting personally offended. You arent your training methods. Its just the internet. If you cant avoid getting annoyed then theres something wrong that should probably be sorted before you deal with physical self defence training. TEMPER TEMPER


Just sick of seeing the same old weak arguments and moany complaints.

Cake Fiend

Ha, you just don't understand the spiritual ways of Martial Arts. You need more training.

bjj-fighter

Was that really neccesery?

bjj-fighter,

I believe Cake Fiend was making witty reference to a common martial arts argument of either/both

a) Stop trying to bring science to our spiritualism man. You clearly dont get our spirituality. Its not all about fighting you idiotic thug

b) You clearly havent invested the time/money to get to Level 16 believer (scientology anyone) and therefore cant comment on Mick Kwon Do.

bjj-fighter

I wasnt talking about Cake fiends post,I was talking about yours and what the hell are you going on about with your "spirtuality"

Musashi

Hehe, just finished Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion", will that count for raising my game?

I also bought the compiled "Graphic novel" of "300", just wanted Dragan to know!

Yeah Musashi its a great consciousness raiser to use Dawkins term. So many parallels with progressive vs. non progressive training models. Really wanna read 300.

bjj-fighter,

Never mind.

pma-ire

hi colum

just on this part of your post...

2) Essentially a science vs. religion argument constantly rears its head with one party looking for empirical evidence and the other relying on faith, belief etc. Faith has no place on a discussion board. Faith kills discussion. Its the ultimate conversation stopper. If you make claims at something being fact then expect people to want proof. Otherwise dont make claims on the interweb. Just like intelligent design is idiotic anti-science there is much of the same bullshido in the martial arts world. Lets again raise our intellectual levels please.

i don't think that there are anyone on here that makes these claims?? well not in the last year or two anyway??

i could be wrong though...

buck65

Was this thread started a couple of years ago or something?
Don't see too much of that bickering going on anymore there are always a few exceptions. And this "Mick - kwon - do" is this meant to be an insult ? if it is surely the OP is guilty of what he is complaining about.

Khannie

buck65 wrote:

And this "Mick - kwon - do" is this meant to be an insult ?

I interpreted it as "insert any TMA name here". I'm pretty certain it wasn't meant as an insult.

paul

Excuse me Khannie but I think you'll find MKD is the strongest martial art. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=287635&referrerid=&highlight=MKD

paul wrote:

i don't think that there are anyone on here that makes these claims?? well not in the last year or two anyway??

Hey paul,

I'm not simply referring to a certain Silat teacher promoting intelligent design as science but to people making claim X and feeling that their right to spout such claims is almost sacrosanct and immune to debate and discussion. The arguments between those who believe in empiricism and those who don't usually end up with one person asking for validation/proof and the other trying to make the request into a personal slight.

Your training methods aren't sacrosanct as far as I'm concerned and if one is willing to come onto to a martial arts discussion board they should be willing to question all things provided it is in a respectful and apersonal manner. Also the other trend seems to be that those who ask questions or are skeptics have something to prove due to some inferiority complex.

Hmmm.

Colum

Dave Joyce

Definately not trying to hijack the thread especially seeing as Colm mentioned it also but I couldn't resist the references to "300" and hope you guys are suggesting reading Steven Pressfields novel "Gates of Fire", as this is a fantastic read.

Khannie

columok wrote:

Excuse me Khannie but I think you'll find MKD is the strongest martial art. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=287635&referrerid=&highlight=MKD

Beauty.

columok wrote:

Your training methods aren't sacrosanct as far as I'm concerned and if one is willing to come onto to a martial arts discussion board they should be willing to question all things provided it is in a respectful and apersonal manner. Also the other trend seems to be that those who ask questions or are skeptics have something to prove due to some inferiority complex.

I don't think that's the problem tbh. People have posted openly on the moderators forum about this, so I'm just giving my perspective based on what I've read there and here (personally, I practice an MA that people don't seem to question on here very often, which is convenient for me).

Anyway...the problem as I've interpreted it is this: People come on here looking for where to do TKD (for example) or wanting to discuss it. TKD (for example, no bashing here please) may not be as good for self defence (let's say per hour of training) as MMA, or MT, or whatever and I guess it's hard to defend that when pushed on the issue. People who practice MMA or combatives or whatever other modern MA point this out. People who practice TKD think "F*ck you. I enjoy TKD." and everyone gets pissed off.

Also, some people have put a lot of time and effort into their chosen martial art and it's hard for them to be apersonal as you put it.

Sure, debate is good, and determining which MA is good for which circumstance is useful, but the people on here who choose to practice a TMA feel like they need to justify themselves and frankly, they shouldn't need to.

It's a real problem. A /lot/ of people don't visit this forum because of the perceived bashing that they get / got/ will get from those who would put forward MMA / BJJ / etc. as the solution to all problems.

Like I said, this is just my perception of the issue, but with each passing day, I'm more convinced that it's an accurate perception.

King.Penguin

I've found talking about a forum on that forum boring. Does anyone else agree. Let's move on.

pma-ire

columok wrote:

Your training methods aren't sacrosanct as far as I'm concerned and if one is willing to come onto to a martial arts discussion board they should be willing to question all things provided it is in a respectful and apersonal manner. Also the other trend seems to be that those who ask questions or are skeptics have something to prove due to some inferiority complex.

i agree with you that if a person is making claims about there art then they must be able to back them up with healthy and coherent debate.

as we have many, many times

but not everyone can do this on either side of the fence and this is where tempers flair.

if people need a buffer then it is only to stop personal abuse, but what personal abuse can differ from person to person!!

pma-ire

columok wrote:

Your training methods aren't sacrosanct as far as I'm concerned and if one is willing to come onto to a martial arts discussion board they should be willing to question all things provided it is in a respectful and apersonal manner. Also the other trend seems to be that those who ask questions or are skeptics have something to prove due to some inferiority complex.

i agree with you that if a person is making claims about there art then they must be able to back them up with healthy and coherent debate.

as we have many, many times

but not everyone can do this on either side of the fence and this is where tempers flair.

if people need a buffer then it is only to stop personal abuse, but what personal abuse can differ from person to person!!

silat liam

columok wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=287635&referrerid=&highlight=MKD



Hey paul,

I'm not simply referring to a certain Silat teacher promoting intelligent design


Colum

Hi Colm
Glad I had such an effect on you that now over a year later, you still writing and thinking about it. Just for the record,since I'm the person you referring to. I thought I better reply to your claim.

I don't teach in any format religion in any of my classes. We all lately, trying to get on together on this forum, to help keep the forum going and online, so after recent developments still using the forum to keep making jibes like this is really silly. What a person believes or has faith in wheither its Intelligent Design, Athesism, Christianity, Hindu etc.. is a personal matter. I dont asked anyone their religion when they join. Can you please supply the proof in any of my posters, flyers, websites, classes, workshops, students or ex students that I've taught in the past that I promote the "Intelligent design" to my students to support your claim about me?

Kind regards

Liam

ps William Sanders is over in Dublin end of May, why dont you come along, I throw in a free pass for you and a friend, as through your promotion by keeping him and his style so well, in the public eye has brought in lots of new students. Which I know we have our difference in the past but I am truely grateful for. Thanks

liammcsilat

liammcsilat wrote:

Can you please supply the proof in any of my posters, flyers, websites, classes, workshops, students or ex students that I've taught in the past that I promote the "Intelligent design" to my students to support your claim about me?

You promoted it as having scientific validity in the thread in my signature much to the outcry of every rational sane individual on that thread. In fact youre the first person Ive ever heard advocate creationism as a valid alternative to Darwinist evolutionary theory.

In reality intelligent design or creationism is a theory being pushed by right wing American fundamentalists. These are the same people who think that AIDS is a gift from God designed to wipe out homosexuals and these people also think that America should be a Christian theocracy. These people think that all of those other religions you mentioned are heathens (not to mention Indonesian mystics) and will go to hell for worshipping heathen or no gods. Many creationists also believe that with the coming rapture there is little or no need to plan for the future since the second coming will take care of that.

Now how is your belief in creationism relevant to your beliefs in martial arts training? Well I fully believe that if someone is gullible enough to believe in the world being 6000 years old etc , theyre likely to believe all kinds of rubbish. Sorry to put it harshly.

Also sorry Ill miss the seminar as Ill be finishing my masters in May. Enjoy it.

Also sorry to the forum for the rehash. Was reminded of the madness by Jasons apology on the other thread.

All the best

Colum

Mark Hamill

pma-ire wrote:

i agree with you that if a person is making claims about there art then they must be able to back them up with healthy and coherent debate.

as we have many, many times

but not everyone can do this on either side of the fence and this is where tempers flair.

If a claim cannot be backed up by whoever makes it, then maybe it should'nt be made, or at least if someone contradicts the claim with reasoning and back up and there is no actual answer to it, then the claim can be deemed as wrong.
Whats the problem?

Jimkel

columok wrote:

In reality intelligent design or creationism is a theory being pushed by right wing American fundamentalists. These are the same people who think that AIDS is a gift from God designed to wipe out homosexuals and these people also think that America should be a Christian theocracy. These people think that all of those other religions you mentioned are heathens (not to mention Indonesian mystics) and will go to hell for worshipping heathen or no gods. Many creationists also believe that with the coming rapture there is little or no need to plan for the future since the second coming will take care of that.

Didnt you say something about NOT bringing spirituality (Faith, Religion etc) into these MARTIAL ARTS AND SELF DEFENCE Discussions??

I like the way the boards are, I study TMA's and When I post sometimes I get ripped on but we argue, we apologise and we learn and grow. Sometimes ya need someone to Insult your MA, it gives rise to debate and hopefully to learning on both sides of the fence.

I have never seen anyone write something like "MMA totally ownz TKD. TKD is ****!!!"
were not that bad!!!!

Think your getting a little emotionally involved here....Temper temper!

Altough I agree with MUCH of what you said I dont think its Fair for you or anyone else besides a MOD to come on here and try LAY DOWN THE LAW

PS: Are you saying it's alright to insult someone or someones art as long as comes across as an intelligent remark,

wats the difference between

columok wrote:

I'm not simply referring to a certain Silat teacher promoting intelligent design

and

columok wrote:

"MMA totally ownz TKD. TKD is ****!!!"

Both are antagonistic comments aimed at a paticular person or group of people....

Maybe you should look up Hypocrisy before ya post again

just a tought...

pma-ire

Mark Hamill wrote:

If a claim cannot be backed up by whoever makes it, then maybe it should'nt be made, or at least if someone contradicts the claim with reasoning and back up and there is no actual answer to it, then the claim can be deemed as wrong.
Whats the problem?

hi mark,

are you agreeing with me or not??

as you've said pretty much the same thing i did, i was just pointing out the fact that it's quite hard to get points across in words only sometimes. as your reply to my post shows

silat liam

Posted by Columok 24th March 2007

2) Essentially a science vs. religion argument constantly rears its head with one party looking for empirical evidence and the other relying on faith, belief etc. Faith has no place on a discussion board. Faith kills discussion. Its the ultimate conversation stopper. If you make claims at something being fact then expect people to want proof. Otherwise dont make claims on the interweb. Just like intelligent design is idiotic anti-science there is much of the same bullshido in the martial arts world. Lets again raise our intellectual levels please.


Two days later :eek:

Posted by Columok 26th March 2007

In reality intelligent design or creationism is a theory being pushed by right wing American fundamentalists. These are the same people who think that AIDS is a gift from God designed to wipe out homosexuals and these people also think that America should be a Christian theocracy. These people think that all of those other religions you mentioned are heathens (not to mention Indonesian mystics) and will go to hell for worshipping heathen or no gods. Many creationists also believe that with the coming rapture there is little or no need to plan for the future since the second coming will take care of that.

Now how is your belief in creationism relevant to your beliefs in martial arts training? Well I fully believe that if someone is gullible enough to believe in the world being 6000 years old etc , they are likely to believe all kinds of rubbish. Sorry to put it harshly.

SorGan

Amen

Chronological post answering time...

Hey Jim,

Didnt you say something about NOT bringing spirituality (Faith, Religion etc) into these MARTIAL ARTS AND SELF DEFENCE Discussions??

No I didn't. I said that faith wasn't a valid answer to a scientific question. Faith is a cop out.

Sometimes ya need someone to Insult your MA

I disagree. Insult is one thing. Challenging your training methods is another.

"MMA totally ownz TKD. TKD is ****!!!"

I disagree. TUG methods of debate are creeping in a little. "Just do MMA. TKD is crap on the street." My example is extreme because it is an example.

Think your getting a little emotionally involved here....Temper temper!

Really not Jimbo. But I guess that's the problem with the internet.

Altough I agree with MUCH of what you said I dont think its Fair for you or anyone else besides a MOD to come on here and try LAY DOWN THE LAW

I wasn't trying to lay down the law. Many forum members are trying to find constructive ways of moving this forum forward. I feel the main issues (in my opinion) needed to be expressed. I felt they were poor debating and lumping of people into categories.

PS: Are you saying it's alright to insult someone or someones art as long as comes across as an intelligent remark,

Slightly irreverant but I thought that was event was what Paul was referring to.


Liam,

2) Essentially a science vs. religion argument constantly rears its head with one party looking for empirical evidence and the other relying on faith, belief etc. Faith has no place on a discussion board. Faith kills discussion. Its the ultimate conversation stopper. If you make claims at something being fact then expect people to want proof. Otherwise dont make claims on the interweb. Just like intelligent design is idiotic anti-science there is much of the same bullshido in the martial arts world. Lets again raise our intellectual levels please.

Martial arts is a science. My point is that faith is not a scientific argument and many martial arts arguments amount to essentially faith based arguments "I believe this because the founder of the art said it was true".

Intelligent design is a way of killing a debate by saying "God did it. No need to investigate that further". Similarily doctrinal approaches to martial arts training methods e.g. "Funakoshi said to do this therefore we should only do this." or "The sacred kung fu scrolls say to train this way therefore we should only train this way" is anti-progressive and results in a stagnating martial art. The reason I left my old martial art was because it was using anti-scientific training methods dictated by a higher founder/institution/power.

Now does believing in intelligent design make everything you do wrong? Of course not as that would be an ad hominem argument. But does believing in intelligent design challenge your credibility in terms of gullibility and intellectual rigour? Yes I believe so. My point again, is if you're gonna swallow that rubbish what other rubbish are you gonna swallow...

Hope that helps you understand Liam,

Colum

Scramble

It seems to me that what people mainly want is information on location, training times, contacts, fees and so on. A thread providing just this information would probably be pretty flame-free as the information is so neutral it's impossible to argue over.

If someone wanted more information and an outline of what a particular martial art involves, then there could be a single link to a wiki entry. Either an irish-based wiki entry or to the main wikipedia entry for that martial art. If someone disagrees with someone a given entry says, then they can involve themselves in the editing process. The beauty of that would be, of course, that this should mean less flaming one another in threads on here.

buck65

where's the fun in that?


PS -TKD owns MMA !!!YAAAAAA
I'm gonna pattern yo ass

PS -TKD owns MMA !!!YAAAAAA
I'm gonna pattern yo ass

Literally? I sure hope not. Then MMA will have to hug you and "take your back"!!!

Khannie

Scramble wrote:

It seems to me that what people mainly want is information on location, training times, contacts, fees and so on. A thread providing just this information would probably be pretty flame-free as the information is so neutral it's impossible to argue over.

Yup, it would also be a pain in the hole to keep up to date. I think a wiki entry would be best, that way, it would be open for all to edit instead of burdening just one person.

Dragan

As a member of boards, mod of fitness and a guy who runs his own site i can tell you that you can have all the stickies you want, you'll STILL get posts from people looking for the info contained in them.

Mark Hamill

pma-ire wrote:

hi mark,

are you agreeing with me or not??

as you've said pretty much the same thing i did, i was just pointing out the fact that it's quite hard to get points across in words only sometimes. as your reply to my post shows

I am agreeing with the first thing you said (about backing up claims), but my point is that if anyone makes a claim that later gets shot down because that person can't back it up then there should be no problem, the claim is just deemed as wrong. The person should get over it.

If someone is unable to back up a claim through words or even by linking to a website that may have a clip showing the point the claim is trying to make (eg Youtube etc) then they shouldn't make claim in the first place.

I am not directing this at any thing you said, i was just commenting on that people should not get angry if their claims are contradicted, its what happens in discussions, its why we are on this board in the first place

pma-ire

Mark Hamill wrote:

I am agreeing with the first thing you said (about backing up claims), but my point is that if anyone makes a claim that later gets shot down because that person can't back it up then there should be no problem, the claim is just deemed as wrong. The person should get over it.

If someone is unable to back up a claim through words or even by linking to a website that may have a clip showing the point the claim is trying to make (eg Youtube etc) then they shouldn't make claim in the first place.

I am not directing this at any thing you said, i was just commenting on that people should not get angry if their claims are contradicted, its what happens in discussions, its why we are on this board in the first place

ah! now your making sense

Tim_Murphy

Now does believing in intelligent design make everything you do wrong? Of course not as that would be an ad hominem argument. But does believing in intelligent design challenge your credibility in terms of gullibility and intellectual rigour? Yes I believe so. My point again, is if you're gonna swallow that rubbish what other rubbish are you gonna swallow...

Think you're being a bit harsh there Colum. If somebody doesn't know a whole lot about science and then say watches a video advocating ID, it can sound quite reasonable and convincing to them. It's easy to dazzle somebody with science, just as easy to do it with pseudoscience. I wouldn't be too critical of somebody who doesn't know much on the subject to think that ID might be legit. That's the reason Dawkins doesn't debate with ID advocates. Debating with them gives the impression to the average person that there is a legitimate debate.

RedXIV

buck65 wrote:

where's the fun in that?

He has the right idea, boards is about discussion, if this place just told you where you can train and in what styles, i'd long ago have passed the place over, it's because every time i come on here, i either see an interesting link to a video or article that i've stayed.

But i can see where Columok is coming from on some of his points. All i've had training in was TKD and when i passed comment in a previous thread i was shot down fairly rapidly.

With that in mind, some members here have been nothing but fantastic. About 7 or 8 of ye have offered me a free class just to get me interested in MMA, if only one of ye were in carlow

Think you're being a bit harsh there Colum. If somebody doesn't know a whole lot about science and then say watches a video advocating ID, it can sound quite reasonable and convincing to them. It's easy to dazzle somebody with science, just as easy to do it with pseudoscience. I wouldn't be too critical of somebody who doesn't know much on the subject to think that ID might be legit. That's the reason Dawkins doesn't debate with ID advocates. Debating with them gives the impression to the average person that there is a legitimate debate.

I think in some ways youre right Tim, I probably am being somewhat harsh.
Nonetheless I see martial arts as a science. A science devoted to excellence in the physical and for some the spiritual. I would expect a teacher of martial arts to have a mind able to interrogate and critically analyse otherwise it would be very hard to advance the martial arts training of a class. But if we took the stance of not debating things that dont merit debate then we would likely have never wiped the floor with sine wave, dodgy training methods or too lethal to practise training because, to the outsider, it is so obviously rubbish to not be worthy of any kind of debate. So while Dawkins wont directly debate with many ID people he still produces book (s) denouncing it for the rubbish it is. I think the telling quote was (para)

This debate will look good on your CV, it wont on mine.

Yet we keep fighting...:)

Tim_Murphy

Nonetheless I see martial arts as a science. A science devoted to excellence in the physical and for some the spiritual. I would expect a teacher of martial arts to have a mind able to interrogate and critically analyse otherwise it would be very hard to advance the martial arts training of a class. But if we took the stance of not debating things that dont merit debate then we would likely have never wiped the floor with sine wave, dodgy training methods or too lethal to practise training because, to the outsider, it is so obviously rubbish to not be worthy of any kind of debate.

Not disagreeing with that for a second.

This debate will look good on your CV, it wont on mine.

I think Dawkins was actually quoting someone else when he wrote that. Not 100% sure though, can't actually remember where I read it.

Valmont

columok wrote:

But does believing in intelligent design challenge your credibility in terms of gullibility and intellectual rigour? Yes I believe so. My point again, is if you're gonna swallow that rubbish what other rubbish are you gonna swallow...

Hope that helps you understand Liam,

Colum

What a load of c*ck, you should put your Dawkins book down for a second. Belief in intelligent design does not in any way 'challenge' anyones 'credibility in terms of gullibility and intellectual rigour'. It may not be an empirically founded belief but to label any proponents of this doctrine as gullible or lacking in their intellectual faculties is plain ignorance. Religion is a preference, not an indication of intelligence.


Maybe this can put things into perspective http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

Sorry for going off topic, the Athiesm/Agnosticism forum is the place for this.

Roper

Hey Valmont, while I agree with you, I think your use of Fundamental Attribution Error as a criticism is a good example of an over extension error

Lads,
Its a sad sad day when a topic about bollocks can run to two pages. To be totally truthful, there are about 2 or 3 posters who actually go out of their way to abuse other posters or question and criticise what they haven't got a clue about. Just ban them or tell them to tone it down or be banned. I'm thinking about the thread on a superb WTF Taekwondo knockout where some gob****es went on about "oh yeah why didn't he have his hands up".

I'm the first to question dodgy claims and methods, and I think thats a good thing about this board, nothing is taken as read. But then theres a few people on here who I think post comments that they think others would like to read, in the hope of maybe scoring some points with someone. Badly explained but I think people will know what I mean.

Lastly, I've only ever seen one person bring religion into these debates and that was in an infamous thread on Silat, so I'm not totally sure why this has become a sticking point. Presumably people have been reading The God Delusion. I'm glad more people are reading Atheist material, speaking as someone who has been one for a fair few years, but really, was there any need to bring this onto a martial arts forum, without any real provocation?

Lastly, really lasty, its only the internet.

cowzerp

Roper wrote:

Lastly, really lasty, its only the internet.

TRUE

Valmont

Last post honestly, honestly.

Valmont wrote:

What a load of c*ck, you should put your Dawkins book down for a second. Belief in intelligent design does not in any way 'challenge' anyones 'credibility in terms of gullibility and intellectual rigour'. It may not be an empirically founded belief but to label any proponents of this doctrine as gullible or lacking in their intellectual faculties is plain ignorance. Religion is a preference, not an indication of intelligence.

If I told you tomorrow that I believed pasta growth in the Mezzogiorno was the major driver of Saharan temperatures you would call me an idiot. But if its part of my religion its somehow beyond reproach? That seems a bit off to me.

Also FAE seems less relevant than say an ad hominem argument. I would make a probablility argument that if someone is gullible enough to agree with one load of rubbish than they are gullible enough to agree with the same again. Anyway enough with that.

Barry wrote:

'm glad more people are reading Atheist material, speaking as someone who has been one for a fair few years

13 years myself. Its not a recent reactionary aliveness thing if thats what you are thinking/implying or not.

Barry wrote:

was there any need to bring this onto a martial arts forum, without any real provocation?

My point wasnt religion per say but argument models that were quite close to those employed by religious people in science v religion arguments
1) It wasnt intentional
2) Many martial artists treat their MAs as religion. Some MAs behave in an almost cultlike way: again Unshakeable doctrine, rigid heirarchy, founder revered, crazy beliefs etc.
3) Many martial arts people argue about their MA in a faith based way.
4) Some other people argue about their MA in a scientific/empirical way

Hence theirs sometimes/often a clash. 3) relies on doctrine while 4) relies on argument reason or empiricism and when 4) starts questioning 3) people become defensive and voila- the usual.

The only reason there isnt a clash now is because many have given up posting in the current environment cause of the MMA conspiracy...

Barry wrote:

Lastly, really lasty, its only the internet.

You have some cheek Mister!!!:mad:

Mark Hamill

Roper wrote:

Lads,
Its a sad sad day when a topic about bollocks can run to two pages. To be totally truthful, there are about 2 or 3 posters who actually go out of their way to abuse other posters or question and criticise what they haven't got a clue about. Just ban them or tell them to tone it down or be banned. I'm thinking about the thread on a superb WTF Taekwondo knockout where some gob****es went on about "oh yeah why didn't he have his hands up".

Hold on, whats wrong with asking that? If you don't question something that you don't know anything about then you will never learn anything about it. I was the one who questioned about keeping hands up and while a few posters did post pack with actual answers to my question (which is what I was looking for) I mostly just got insults and things like "oh, when are we going to see you win gold in TKD olympics" Its idiots like them who should be banned

Roper

How was that you you've got like 8 posts??? It was someone else actually, and it wasn't "why don't they keep their hands up" it was "well thats what you get for not keeping your hands up" in a smart way. Then when others responded with reasons why they don't, then the guy dug his heels in and couldn't accept that we were talking about a sport he had no understanding of. I'm no fan of WTF but I've done it and appreciate the skill involved, ergo can speak with a modicum of experience on it. Clive likewise, but the other ignoramus wouldn't accept that and continued trolling.

Colum,
I wasn't asking for your atheism CV I was just pointing out how much of this thread seems to be motivated by a certain popular book . I'm not so sure that there's a religion versus science argument here anymore as I think the more religious martial artists (I mean those who train in a martial art with religious aspects) give this forum a wide berth, or at least just lurk. The difficulties that tend to be here are more of the street lethal versus sport arguments. I think the Mick Coup article posted the other day is a good meeting point for that.

Respect,
Barry

Barry,

This isn't over.

Regards,

Colum

Mark Hamill

Roper wrote:

How was that you you've got like 8 posts??? It was someone else actually, and it wasn't "why don't they keep their hands up" it was "well thats what you get for not keeping your hands up" in a smart way. Then when others responded with reasons why they don't, then the guy dug his heels in and couldn't accept that we were talking about a sport he had no understanding of. I'm no fan of WTF but I've done it and appreciate the skill involved, ergo can speak with a modicum of experience on it. Clive likewise, but the other ignoramus wouldn't accept that and continued trolling.

I had a different user name then.
Yes i got an explanation, but i questioned it and then just got crap about " oh when will we see you in the Olympics" and "you don't know what you are talking about". I kept my posts reasonable and waited for replies with actual discussion (i did get one or two) but most where just insults.

Colm_OReilly

Colum,

Post #11: Ad hominem attack
Post #18: Also fallacious, attacking people based on their other believes, rather than the issue presented.

Methinks you should read your own links on fallacies.

I haven't read all this thread, and it'll be Easter weekend until I'm fully back and committed to this board. I'll be talking with the other mods before then as well.

Colm

Valmont

Roper wrote:

I'm no fan of WTF but I've done it and appreciate the skill involved, ergo can speak with a modicum of experience on it. Clive likewise, but the other ignoramus wouldn't accept that and continued trolling.

I thought it was stupid that he had his hands down, but after it was explained that Taekwondo guys need to do that for extra balance for the flashy kicks I understood. We can't all know the specifities of other arts!

Roper wrote:

just pointing out how much of this thread seems to be motivated by a certain popular book . Respect,
Barry

The Athiesm/Agnostic forum is inundated with Richard Dawkins threads, I'm always lurking there. Anyone interested should head over.

Hey Riley. Woo logic debate.:) Im not referring to anybody on boards so this isnt personal. If its boring to any of you, apologies. And Ive already acknowledged my snipeyness.

Logic is a system of negatives, positives, ands, ors and ifs. So if I were to say that

Hitler is fond of anti-semitism and genocide therefore anything he says or does is definitely anti semitic and genocidal.

This is clearly a classical ad hominem argument.

On the other hand if I was to use a probability argument rather than a true or false argument and say

Hitler is fond of anti-semitism and genocide therefore anything he says or does is likely anti semitic and genocidal.

then by virtue of the fact that Ive used probability rather than absolute it would surely not be a fallacious argument. You might question the degree of probability but I know no reason to render the argument/hypothesis fallacious by default.

If anyone could enlighten me however I would be very grateful.:)

Thanks,

Colum

EDIT: This is essentially a precedent argument and precedent while not always relevant and fair is a cornerstone of human society...

Lou.m

columok wrote:

Ive been on this forum for a while now with my attendance varying from season to season. A few common themes have emerged and are constantly reappearing over and over again.

1) Many many people have little understanding of logic. Fallacious arguments riddle the board. A fallacy is an error in reason. Example: There couldnt be anything wrong with Mick-Kwon-Do- Its really old (Argumentum ad antiquitatem)! Please read up on some basic reason and logic. It raises the level of debate of the board as a whole,
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html


2) Essentially a science vs. religion argument constantly rears its head with one party looking for empirical evidence and the other relying on faith, belief etc. Faith has no place on a discussion board. Faith kills discussion. Its the ultimate conversation stopper. If you make claims at something being fact then expect people to want proof. Otherwise dont make claims on the interweb. Just like intelligent design is idiotic anti-science there is much of the same bullshido in the martial arts world. Lets again raise our intellectual levels please.

3) Following up a request for a specific thing with an attack on that thing is unwanted, unhelpful and idiotic. Example:
Person-A: Id like the location of a TKD club please.
ultimatecageLeGeNd: MMA totally ownz TKD. TKD is ****!!!
If ultimatecageLegend thinks theyre doing the MMA community (what the hell is the MMa community) a favour- theyre not. Youre making people commit my next cardinal sin.

4) Lumping people into boxes is useless. There is no boards.ie MMA conspiracy. Insulting the MMA community is pointless. It doesnt exist. There is a strong group of people on boards.ie who have set views on training methods but the resemblance ends there! They train old and new martial arts. Self defence and sport. Japanese and Western.
Example:
Complainer1: For gods sake. The guy just asked for a TKD club and now the whole MMA community are jumping on board. OMFG theyre such a shower of hijacking pimping etc.
There is no community and just because some arse represents a common viewpoint with other members of the board doesnt mean they represent a community. They could well be an angry 13 year old who just discovered martial art A.

5) Separate the martial art from you. Theyre different. You should be able to logically debate training methods and fighting without getting personally offended. You arent your training methods. Its just the internet. If you cant avoid getting annoyed then theres something wrong that should probably be sorted before you deal with physical self defence training. TEMPER TEMPER


Just sick of seeing the same old weak arguments and moany complaints.

Ha Ha , i have a B.A in philosophy and i studied logic for two years and this is so funny the page you show is all wrong half the fallacies it has listed under logical fallacies are not at all they are informal fallacies and the definitions are terrible.

By the the way your own definition of a fallacy is in itself a fallacy , not all fallacies are errors in reason at all only formal fallacies (or logical fallacies) are i think you got confused because of reading that page . Petitio Principii or circulus pobando is a famous example of a fallacy that has an error of premise rather than an error in reason at the root of the problem only that page has it under the logical fallacy(or formal) list when it is really an informal fallacy i think that is what confused you because all logical fallacies are errors in reason but informal fallacies are different.
By the way science is not based on empirical evidence science is what is falsifiable a lot of science is based entirely on apriori knowledge rather than aposteriori knowledge. Maths for example is a science based on apriori knowledge rather than empirical evidence.
A lot of sciences distrust empirical evidence as empirical evidence is often based on empirical experience which is what a lot of faith and theology is based on.
By the way real logic not just stuff for popular books is mostly just maths and has its limits for example i have attached logic symbolism for the statement that x exists and a little bit down from that is leibniz's law and the theorem for necessity of identity and applicatin of Leibniz's law to the property of being necessarily identical. If you open the attachment you will see it. Tell me what you do you think do you think arguments such as this could have any bearing on boards?They are examples of logic and you say you would like more logic and reason on boards so take a look everyone what do you think?If you wan tto get reasonable and logical about it columok then you should be able to tell me what they mean. Let us really raise the bar of debate far above the psuedo philososophy of the internet and popular culture. It always rather annoys me when people talk of logical argument and have no real idea of what logic is. You know in universities or acedemic papers in is common manners when talking of logic to speak in logical symbolism.

Really let me know although i have to insist that if we are going to be truly logical that you eliminate words and go for pure logic.

Unfortunately it does rather eliminate conversation and humanity and using logic unfortunately does not eliminate fallacies altogether as informal fallacies (arguments with where the error in not based on the form or reason of the argument) are still a risk.Logic has its limits as does reason.

However if you really do insist on lecturing everyone else on the standard of their reasoning and debate i really must insist you raise your own and actually understand what you are talking about.
And if you want to start talking logical fallacies then have the theorems or maths to back it up otherwise you will never know if you are talking rubbish.If you want true logical arguments then at least have a damn truth table if you dont even know what that is then i suggest you leave logic alone for now.

I have to say your post was snide and condecending to say the least and you are not bloody Wittgenstein yourself.

You may be a nice person at heart but most of the people on boards are nice decent people and i would suggst that if you have a problem with some of them that you pm them and take it up with them personnally rather than subjecting everyone to a collective insult.

And logic is not simply a system of negatives and positives ands , or's and if's.

I comend you for acknowledging your own bad manners, what you call snipeyness.

By the way the argument you use for the statement below might be said to be a fallacy as the probability is not quantified , when probability is not quantifiable is renders the statement too vague to be meaningful sometimes. Therefore it could be said to be a fallacy of vagueness.

However any logical debate merely expressed in words is not really logic you need to work it out in logical symbolism to know if it is actually true. If you had worked out that statment using just truth tables even, you would have known there was a problem.

Logic is really like maths the attachment has two tiny tiny weeny examples of what logic looks like i did not have enough time for more.

Seriosly though to be vexatious is to be childish and a childish mind can never become refined enough to understand logic and even more importantly to understand the rest of philosophy.

I would suggest you go find some nice philosophy students to debate with but they would club you to intellectual death with their logic.

Now as i said i am sure at heart you are a nice person but really you are a bit full of yourself.

Valmont

Lou.m wrote:

Maths for example is a science based on apriori knowledge rather than empirical evidence.

That's Kant right?

What a great post, woohoo:D right on. Lou.M by keyboard smash in the second.haha

Lou.m

Valmont wrote:

That's Kant right?

Well now this is gonna be a complicated answer.

Well i actually was not thinking of Kant when i wrote this post i was just trying to give an example of a science that was based solely on knowledge apriori and maths just came to me. It was a sort of louism.

Kant sought to go beyond the dichotomy of rationalism and empericism that was the main debate of the philsosphy of his time.

He sought to do this by trying to understand not how we bring ourselves to to understand the world but how the world comes to be understood by us. Kant held that we must allow the structure of our concepts to shape our experience of objects.

He sough tto do this by drawing distinctions among the judgements that we do make. In Prolegomena to any future metaphysic a distinction is made of apriori from aposteriori by reference to the origin of our knowlegdge of them.

The terms apriori and aposteriori have been around a lot longer though they are used in medieval scholastic philososphy.

But kant makes a different approach to philosophy by going beyond rationalism and empericism.
And yes although i had not thought of it kant does hold that maths particularly geometry is a science based on knowledge apriori.

He sort of gives it as an example well he gives geometry inparticular as an example.

But it is kind of self evident so it just popped into my head as i was writing i was not really basing anything on kant.


I was just writing stuff.

Colm_OReilly

Thanks Lou.

eoghan.geraghty

Mongo head hurt.
Think need lie down, or smash something!