That sentiment is shared by pretty much every MMA trainee, be it those who train for self-defense or for competition. This is a false dichotomy, the idea that "sport" methodology does not and cannot be focused on the end result of destroying an opponent. Therein lies the problem. You don't know. Alive training as exemplified by (though not limited to) MMA allows you to know exactly what you can and cannot do. So-called "submission" techniques are merely what you call half-measures. The benefit being though, that by training and learning how to position myself so as to ensure that half-measure of submission, I ensure that I can, should I decide to (self-defense, rather than sport) snap that joint at my leisure, be it an elbow arm bar or a wrist lock. I have learned how to achieve dominant position, which allows me control and leverage of my opponent while exposing me to as little harm as possible. I know I can snap wrists. Would I want to? That's another question, but then, as you mentioned, if it comes to that, break what ever comes your way. Your point is directly contradicted by Kano's Kodokan victory over various jujutsu schools in open challenge, as well as Royce Gracie's victory in the first UFC, where there were no rules. Then, why don't you head that argument off at the pass with logical analysis and factual information? My art is older than yours. It is a legitimate pre-Occupation KMA. I currently write this from a Buddhist temple, where I have taken vows as a disciple. I practice kigong every morning, practice weapons & unarmed techniques that are part of a unified curriculum. I say this not as the fallacy of appeal to authority but rather to qualify my following statements. The idea of a "traditional practitioner" is an inherent false dichotomy which serves no purpose as it cannot be satisfactorily defined, especially when it comes to the Korean martial arts. It serves only to force discussion into a dogmatic either/or which does not reflect reality. Appeal to authority. If the teacher can demonstrate that what he does can be applied in an alive environment, it doesn't matter if he was a bodyguard or a fry cook. The proof is in the teaching itself, not in the man doing it.
That your argument is based around several false dichtomies and assumptions. Please feel free to provide counter-arguments.
I'm afraid that this is going to be a rather short discussion if you are going to deal only in totologies. Your logic is cyclic; to wit: Of course, there are dichotomies and assumptions, and probably not a few "unwarrented conclusions". If you did not believe this you would not be making the comment, yes? You apparently believe these things to be "false". I fail to see your point. Were you of a mind that I am empowered to change your thinking? The only observation that I can make constructively is that you have identified some authority with me, and are substituting an illusion you find more to your liking. You are free to do this. So I ask again. Whats your point?
Ah... to what exactly, Steve? All I see is that an observation was made and judgement performed. And so?
Tautologies, which those weren't. Prove it. I'm of a mind that appreciates intelligent, rational discussion, bound by the dictates of logic. It is a simple process. If you make claims, you should be able to prove them. Ad hominem. Don't waste my time if you are unable to have a logical discussion. I am not interested in fallacies. Bruce, I'm afraid you've misunderstood. I haven't made any points. You've made several claims and suppositions. I am questioning them, attempting to engage you in rational discussion, to see if your reasoning stands up to logic. Please provide counter-arguments. Then I suggest you adjust your perceptions, because no judgements have been made. You have not provided any counterarguments to back up your claims. It would be a bit early in the game to make a judgement.
"....Bruce, I'm afraid you've misunderstood. I haven't made any points. You've made several claims and suppositions. I am questioning them, attempting to engage you in rational discussion, to see if your reasoning stands up to logic." Well, then... I am afraid you are on a fools errand. If you have made no points there is nothing to discuss. You have identified what you call several "claims and suppositions". Feel free. You are questioning them. In fact you made a judgement and announced that the items you identified were "false". Good for you. Again, feel free to do so. You report that you want to see if my "reasoning stands-up to logic"--- which, of course, will be determined by you, yes? Would you like to tell me why I would set myself up in a no-win situation where I spend my energy working to design/identify a circumstance that satisfies the judgement of one who has already indicated they have made up their view in another direction? Please tell me you have something more productive in mind than this masturbatory drill? BTW: I know you like to use the term "Ad hominem". I suppose that it suggestions some erudition. Kindly use it correctly or not at all. My statement WAS an appeal to Reason, even if you may not agree with the premise, rather than an appeal to "prejudices" (see: Webster's 2nd C/E). If its of any help, you may consider Billy Crystal's quip in FORGET PARIS ("...you may look like my mother, but you're not.") which, in fact is an ad hominem remark. In the spirit of this thought I can share that the word is totalities bespeaking a summation of totals as opposed to tautology bespeaking needless repetition. It's late here, but I am still capable of knowing the observation I am work to make. Now, if I called you an "idiot" or a "moron" for making this mistake, THAT would be an ad hominem remark. As it is you simply drew an incorrect but Reasonable conclusion, and I made a Reasonable correction.
"....consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person ..." Thank you, Yohan. And since I neither "attacked", Auslander, or appealed to a characterisitic or belief OF the person,certainly not with an eye towards changing the subject (?), my guess is that MM108 will need to press some other exotic qualifier into service, yes?
