Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[hskwarrior]

HSK, One of the examples he gave was the fact that the 5 animal form came from Doc-Fai Wong's book and or video. So there is at least 1 former Sin The school that completely acknowledges your systems form. I have talked to him about the discussion here and he has read your posts. I would like to discuss this with you further privately if you are open to that.

sure. all i really care about is honesty at the end of the day

[wenshu]

Something tells me that you don't need P90X for that. Maybe Zumba or a Richard Simmons video, but not P90X.

My goodness, you guys are dense.

The joke was that p90x might as well be Zumba or Richard Simmons; they all make you limp wristed and androygonous.

If you think P90x is a good workout Shaolin Do is worse off than I thought.

[GeneChing]

My goodness, you guys are dense.

Just kidding. We respect all of you. And don't forget to do your holiday shopping at MartialArtsMart.com (http://www.martialartsmart.com/).

:rolleyes:

[Empty_Cup]

...

If you think P90x is a good workout Shaolin Do is worse off than I thought.

Have you done P90X? Which program (Classic or Doubles) and for how long?

[Syn7]

Zero.

Next question?

So then you have a definition for angel? Or are you just making definitive statements about the unknown? We call that talking out your ass!!!

Same goes for you KC. Full of assumptions about something you have no way of knowing. To me that if the definition of bull****.

[Syn7]

I am not talking Religon I am talking spirituality and God, Man invented Religion and ALL the things that are corrupt to man kind, associated with it. KC:)

Gimme one example of anyone ever humbled by god. Just one. I'll tear it apart. Bring it, I'll take the 30 seconds to destroy it.

[Syn7]

I had no idea what this meant ("twink"), so I looked it up.



We used to call candy ravers twinkies. You know the ones who are all shiney with glow in the dark and edible jewelry!

[Lucas]

so if jesus is jewish, and all the christians worship jesus, why arent they all jewish? :eek:

[EarthDragon]

syn7


Gimme one example of anyone ever humbled by god. Just one. I'll tear it apart. Bring it, I'll take the 30 seconds to destroy it.

i stumbled across this thread and forgive me for not reading through the last 100 pages but i have studied all religions and consider my self very educated and a spiritualist, not conformed to any man made religion. May I ask in a nut shell what the argument/discussion is about this topic. perhaps I can shed light to allow you all to understand

[EarthDragon]

ps twinkie...... slang is for asian people, white on the inside yellow on the outside, its also for gay young boys, but twinkies are not ravers those are tweekers.

[Syn7]

I though that was a banana? lol

Twinkie is usually applied to people who seem weak and frivolous.
Not all twinkie ravers are tweekers. I imagine these definitions change region by region.

About the humility thing, no need, ED.
I want KC to answer.

[EarthDragon]

SYN7
I understand I just wanted to shed some light and understanding, I belong and have discussion groups that we speak of quantum phsyics science and relgion and it helps alow people to understand. becuse most people think only one sided based on ignorance blind faith upbrging form our parents etc etc, the more one educates themselfs the ****ther form religion then tend to sway but its diiffucult for ppeople to understand this

[Syn7]

Here is my problem with that. The definitions push beyond understanding everytime they are shown to be bull****. In the scientific community, we have a word for people like that. Crackerjack mother****ers!

Once upon a time god controlled all, directly. The blinky lights were the heavens. Then we found out that those blinky lights were actually celestial bodies that could be defined. Then we found out that evolution is indeed an actuality. and so on and so on... And every single time it met with violent resistance until eventually those who had some ability to be objective had no choice but to concede many of these points. Now all the sudden these old texts aren't literal anymore and the previous definition of god is pushed back, once again, just beyond comprehension. It's apologist bull**** and I am simply not gonna play that game anymore. I don't grudge anyone the right to believe what they want to believe as long as they aren't hurting anyone(many cause major harm, but many are harmless), but that doesn't mean I have to respect the opinion itself. It's one cop out after another and very rarely does anyone involved take responsibility for their past ignorance.

Like I said, if a crutch bandaid helps you sleep at night, rock on with ya bad selves.

I am not even willing to debate theology. But I will debate the mindstate behind it all day!

[kwaichang]

The more I am educated the more I believe in God because quantim mechanics or physics is a word made up by man or Physicists to try to explain something they cant explain, such as dark matter etc. This is nothing more than the lack of a persons willingness to admit they dont know what they are talking about. Ii dont care what people believe because all will believe what they want. So the question is name someone humbled by God , the answer is everyone when you die. KC

[Syn7]

Let's say I was doing an an experiment. I have hypothesis A, now it's time to prove it or disprove it. I do tests, but all the sudden my tests blow my hypothesis out of the water. I find undeniable proof that I was wrong about the details of my hypothesis. Now the smart thing to do would be to look at the evidence and scrutinize my data to see why my hypothesis didn't hold up and whether the whole concept is weak, or just some of it.

Now, let's say that instead of being objective I decide to stick to my hypothesis and just push it ahead just beyond what I can verify. Anyone here call that success? Now how smart is that?

[Syn7]

The more I am educated the more I believe in God because quantim mechanics or physics is a word made up by man or Physicists to try to explain something they cant explain, such as dark matter etc. This is nothing more than the lack of a persons willingness to admit they dont know what they are talking about. Ii dont care what people believe because all will believe what they want. So the question is name someone humbled by God , the answer is everyone when you die. KC

Wow, you don't know **** about physics. That much is clear. Maybe you should learn the basics before you make yourself look any dumber by talking about things you clearly don't understand. You have tidbits without foundation. How well would that work in MA's? Watching rocky movies and shadow boxing in your bedroom will not make you a champion.

Stop confusing applied sciences with the theoretical. One is science, the other is philosophy. Learn the difference.

[Syn7]

So the question is name someone humbled by God , the answer is everyone when you die. KC

:rolleyes:

Seriously, name one. For real. None of this evasive bull****.

[bawang]

so if jesus is jewish, and all the christians worship jesus, why arent they all jewish? :eek:

im jewish.

[kwaichang]

Here is your answer Mother Teresa

[Judge Pen]

Mother Teresa could have been doing all her good work because it made her happy....i.e. in total self-interest. Or she could have been doing it from a total altruistic perspective. The problem with arguing religion is that it is unprovable and 100% subjective.

[kwaichang]

I do not argue Religon it is of Man wisdom of God is not religon it is understanding. Man takes pride in knowledge and is puffed up, Gods wisdom out shines all Mans so called wisdom.
Mother Teresa if she wanted to feed her own Ego would have found another way instead of feeding the hungry and clothing the Naked. We would have never known of her if Man had not brought attention to her. To name someone that is a person of God that does not do so for ego reasons is easy but who among you would have heard of Bob Hunt. KC

[Syn7]

Here is your answer Mother Teresa

Stop being evasive, or just admit you can't answer the question. At what point did God humble her and what where the circumstances surrounding the event and how does it fit into her timeline? Be specific or admit you have no examples to give.

[Syn7]

Mother Teresa could have been doing all her good work because it made her happy....i.e. in total self-interest. Or she could have been doing it from a total altruistic perspective. The problem with arguing religion is that it is unprovable and 100% subjective.

No such thing as a purely selfless act. PERIOD!

[Judge Pen]

No such thing as a purely selfless act. PERIOD!

You may be right, but unless you are in the mind of those purporting to do these "selfless" acts, you can't know for certain. Just because you can't conceive it in your own mind doesn't make it so.

[Syn7]

I do not argue Religon it is of Man wisdom of God is not religon it is understanding. Man takes pride in knowledge and is puffed up, Gods wisdom out shines all Mans so called wisdom.
Mother Teresa if she wanted to feed her own Ego would have found another way instead of feeding the hungry and clothing the Naked. We would have never known of her if Man had not brought attention to her. To name someone that is a person of God that does not do so for ego reasons is easy but who among you would have heard of Bob Hunt. KC

Which Bob Hunt? Jamestown Bobby? The Chaplain?

[Kellen Bassette]

No such thing as a purely selfless act. PERIOD!

No one, ever in history has done anything purely selflessly?? Come now...

[Syn7]

You may be right, but unless you are in the mind of those purporting to do these "selfless" acts, you can't know for certain. Just because you can't conceive it in your own mind doesn't make it so.

Give me a hypothetical and I will show you why I am right. Keep in mind the key word here is "purely".

[Syn7]

No one, ever in history has done anything purely selflessly?? Come now...

Throw down, son. Let's have some examples. We can spar! It'll be fun. ;)

[Kellen Bassette]

Throw down, son. Let's have some examples. We can spar! It'll be fun. ;)

Whatever example I would give, you'll probably counter by saying they did that to make themselves feel good, or to appease their own view of right and wrong, or morality...

But how can you know for sure someone's motives? How can you be sure that nobody ever did something selflessly with no subliminal, ulterior motive? It's just a ridiculous, unprovable statement.

[Syn7]

I will not argue that people do acts of kindness for unselfish reasons. But I will argue that nobody does an act of kindness for purely selfless reasons. Everything we do has some selfish motivation.

Give me an example where somebody would do anything without any personal motivation. Hypotheticals are fine. Give it a shot, but I think you know where I'm going with this.


And if you wanna get real deep, we don't know ANYTHING for sure. You can't even prove you exist. But come on, let's not even go there, for the sake of maintaining some structure to our thinking.

There are many things I can tell you with relative certainty, and this is one of those things. I can't prove anything really, but I can make an educated guess based on thousands of years of observations.

[Judge Pen]

Give me a hypothetical and I will show you why I am right. Keep in mind the key word here is "purely".

You can't prove or disprove a hypothetical without making assumption which may or may not be true. Religion or spirituality is a subjective experience, so people outside of that experience cannot prove or discount that experience. The person may be delusional or enlightened. That is between them and their god.

[Judge Pen]

And if you wanna get real deep, we don't know ANYTHING for sure. You can't even prove you exist. But come on, let's not even go there, for the sake of maintaining some structure to our thinking.



Wow, this whole world, this thread, even you, KC and Frank are nothing more than my own fabrication. ****, I wish I had a better imagination.

[Syn7]

That is between them and their god.

Now that was an assumption.


A hypothetical IS an assumption. So.... yeah :rolleyes:

I was trying to give you a lil room to work. But ok. Give me a real one then.

I know you're a lawyer, but you must be familiar with the concept of a thought experiment.

[Syn7]

Wow, this whole world, this thread, even you, KC and Frank are nothing more than my own fabrication. ****, I wish I had a better imagination.

I bet you do...

[Kellen Bassette]

And if you wanna get real deep, we don't know ANYTHING for sure. You can't even prove you exist. But come on, let's not even go there, for the sake of maintaining some structure to our thinking.

Like the matrix, lol...I don't particularly care to go that far either...but I can't give an example, from anyone but myself, (which I don't think fits the bill), as I have no way of knowing anyone else's motives.

My point is, it's not possible to know why everyone did anything...it's just absurd to assume all thinking fits the same basic profiles or that everyone reacts from the same base motives. The human condition is too vast and variable.

My objection isn't your idea, it's the definitive wording...which by the way is a huge problem I have with contemporary science. If it's "reasonable to believe", "most likely", "Evidence suggests," "the research indicates", ect. then fine...but when it's presented as fact, something that can't, by definition, be proven, or more than an opinion, (however reasonable or educated)...than it contradicts the very principles of science: test, observe, measure....

Sorry about the tangent and taking a long way around, but you get what I'm saying...I have no doubt you could demonstrate personal gain in what most people would see as selflessness, but to say it has never occurred, "period" I don't think that's likely and certainly not provable...

[Syn7]

Well, fact is merely consensus. Truth is something else altogether.

I know what you mean. I may not be able to always narrow down an exact motivation, but I can all but guarantee there is self in the process. By nature of where the act originates. If self does anything, it is motivated by self, for whatever reason. The reason isn't even relevant for the purposes of this discussion. It's not really that deep when you think about it.

But you are right. What I identify as red may appear as yellow in your mind despite the "fact" that we agree that what we are looking at is called red.

Most people who argue with me on this do so because of the negative association with the word "selfish". Like the word inconsiderate. It means what it means, anything else is on whoever makes the extra interpretation. I once called my ex inconsiderate. She was so mad. So I asked her if she had considered it? Obviously it just made the argument worse, but only cause I was right. So she blew a fuse and stormed off like the emotional wreck that she was.

I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. I can't be held me accountable for other peoples assumptions.

On occasion I do not express myself as well as I could, or should. But I'll always clear it up when it becomes apparent that it's necessary.


"PERIOD" was my opinion. The rest is based on observation. I can't prove it definitively, but I can do a better job at producing examples on my end than anyone can from the other end. That much you must concede.

[EarthDragon]

Let's say I was doing an an experiment. I have hypothesis A, now it's time to prove it or disprove it. I do tests, but all the sudden my tests blow my hypothesis out of the water. I find undeniable proof that I was wrong about the details of my hypothesis. Now the smart thing to do would be to look at the evidence and scrutinize my data to see why my hypothesis didn't hold up and whether the whole concept is weak, or just some of it.

Now, let's say that instead of being objective I decide to stick to my hypothesis and just push it ahead just beyond what I can verify. Anyone here call that success? Now how smart is that?

great post. however your question about who has been humbled by God. is in answereable, yet to all, everyone has an answer.

depends in your undestanding of God and humblness, there is no such thing as reality only ones percetion of events. I may not percive humblenss then how could you ask if anything could or ever has humbled me.

[Judge Pen]

Now that was an assumption.


A hypothetical IS an assumption. So.... yeah :rolleyes:

I was trying to give you a lil room to work. But ok. Give me a real one then.

I know you're a lawyer, but you must be familiar with the concept of a thought experiment.

I'm familiar with the concept, but I don't see the point when it comes to religion.

[Empty_Cup]

Acts are neutral occurrences and only have morality attached to them by humans.

[Shaolin Wookie]

You may be right, but unless you are in the mind of those purporting to do these "selfless" acts, you can't know for certain. Just because you can't conceive it in your own mind doesn't make it so.

You guys are arguing questions settled 100 years ago in microeconomics. All human actions are aimed at a state that an individual prefers over the state that would likely prevail if that individual refrained from interfering with the course of events. And since value is subjective (see marginal utility theory), all values are calculated rationally by individuals. Now, some people act because they feel that others will benefit from their labors. This will only prove true if others value the goods and services produced by others. If the do-Gooder fails to make a profit (psychic or otherwise), then he or she vastly overestimated his or her utility to other people as an agent of happiness.

Value is subjective, and actions are selfish (but not necessarily narcissistic) by Definition.

Now, if what I just said is a mere hypothesis that must be confirmed by lab tests, might you try to disprove it? Would you not require aiming at an explanation of actions that you prefer-either on evidentiary grounds or ideological-over the theory that all action is driven by individual desires? You prove the theory--and hence the theory is a priori true. Human action is a special case in philosophical debates.

[Shaolin Wookie]

The Austrians are the strongest on this position.

Take the idea of collective knowledge (consensus) and collective action. Collective knowledge, such as what accrues in textbooks, is individually known and subject to refutation--if it is not axiomatic in the way that mathematics and human action are. Some people argue that reality is a fiction. This is funny. An argument that denies reality requires language, time, space (as prerequisites for speech unfolding sequentially in a comprehensible manner), an audience (and hence another being in the spatial-temporal frame), value-driven behavior ( convincing others that reality is false), and the presupposition that the original premise could be true (and hence that all things are not false.

Anyways...so some of you we're saying that nothing could be proven? You guys need some Aristotle, Kant, or Mises, and fast!

[Shaolin Wookie]

Selfless acts are overrated. Imagine mother Theresa is giving food to a group of indigent Africans, but these Africans believe that she is performing witchcraft on Africans to turn them into ZOmbies. They're not being irrational -- that are doing what they see is in their best interests. They're wrong, empirically, since food can't turn you into a zombie, but there might in fact be some witchcraft in Theresa's motives. She claims to do good works for a guy with only one half of a DNA strand, born of a virgin, who gave his disciples his own flesh for a last meal, and who then rose from the dead--a walker. Those who keep his flesh-eating covenant are promised eternal life after death---pure zombie-ism. Theresa sees all acts done for this Zombie savior ( as the Africans see him) as selfless, because she does not profit immediately. However, she may or may not be doing those deeds for treasures stored up in heaven, or simply to reduce misery and starvation. The Africans have cause for concern if they do not have the tools to determine whether her food donations can cause Zombie-ism.
In any case, Mother Theresa does not act selflessly, as long as she sees the outcome of her deeds as better than refraining from doing them.

Now, we all know that capitalism (private ownership of the means of production, rather than govt(public ownership) is stronger than 100000000 mother Theresas. Furthermore, unlike public programs like obamacare, you don't have to pay for anyone else's share of goods and services. Community and collective action is a kind way of saying that you're going to force some people to do things that they would not do if they were free to abstain from action. If collective action is completely voluntary, then it's a corporation. If its coercive and violent, then it's a state. As long as actions do not violate other people's natural right to act for their own happiness ( hence murder and theft are excluded from these rights), then we know where freedom lies----competing corporations in a free market.

Now, lets overthrow the government, shall we?

[kwaichang]

I have found that Left brain , proove it to me types who dont like the idea of a God , will not admit their is one, . Anyway as far as saying one who does for someone w/o thought of self I will give you 2 examples,
1. My dad was a Marine his group was at Guadalcanal, most were killed there was a gentle man who did a heroic deed like the old movie thing of grabbing a grenade and covering it with his body, he saved many lives, he got no reward in this life, but the next life doesnt matter because none acknowledge God. Sure he got a medal or should I say his family did but it didnt bemnefit him at all.
2. Dr White of Austin Texas, a Neuro Surgeon, he checked on my son 2x per day for a full week , ordered 2 MRI's and other tests, to check for possible brain damage, then gave my son a pair of little blue shoes, when he was Dc'd. We were informed everyday by him that our son was going to be fine, and he is. When we asked for a bill he said dont worry about it , when we looked for a hospital bill of the MRI's there was none, we had to hunt him down to thank him , he was embarrased to be thanked, HE NEVER RECEIVED A DIME, well if this isnt selfless nothing is, if you dont think it is wait till your kid is born and he/she has to be in the Neonatal ICU. You will feel different then, Oh and btw Dr white sends a birthday card to my son every year on his birthday. KC

[wenshu]

all values are calculated rationally by individuals.

You are insane.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Imagine a state of affairs--a free market--in which only voluntary actions occur (and where all coercive acts are punished only if proven or if the plaintiff takes responsibility for recouping costs if the defendant is later proven innocent). It's hard to imagine such a state of affairs when we keep moving away from it---but then, no, it's not.

Many atheists charge religion with having been the most violent and bloody organization in human history. Many theists counter that Soviet Russia--an atheistic communistic society--was just as bad. Both are correct, and both have misidentified the problem.

Religion in America today is rather peaceful. There are some closet nutjobs who blow up buildings, but they're in the minority. Churches exist independent of the state in a completely tax-free sector. They are free market corporations that rely only on voluntary contributions (a market pricing mechanism) for spiritual services. In this economic manner, they're no different than a chirporactic center or a kosher food store. How is it that religion, violent and bloody as it has always been, is now so peaceful---and even successful? Hmmmm.....free markets, anyone?

Take religion out of the hands of the state---with its goonsquads, massive armories, and its "selfless" public servants---and religion becomes peaceful. Put it in the hands of those same agents, and you have the Middle East as it is today.

Why was communism so violent and bloody? It was a faulty theory. If everyone HAS to become a communist, then many people are going to be forced to join and have their belongings stolen by a government agency. It was the theory of "selfless" action that was its downfall, since selfless action is impossible. And insofar as communism was coercive and violent and centered around a single ideology, it was a state institution.

If a bunch of hippies want to join a commune in backwoods, Wyoming, all the more happiness to them. They simply cannot prevent anyone from leaving, or else they violate natural rights (You cannot alienate your will, since your will is changeable based on your circumstances [hence that pesky marginal utility theory again]). Voluntary socialism is nearly dead as a doornail, and social democrats of the American Democrat variety are now--though they do not realize it, since many do not want communism---nevertheless socialists in fact because they keep moving towards involuntary socialism---obamacare, social security, medicare, medicaid. Communal actions that rely on force are always an attack on the free market, and hence always hamper our ability to calculate rationally in economics. They are therefore bad.

But anyways, religion is like a castrated bull without the state. So is socialism. Ally the two and you get chaos, poverty, and the worst side of human nature.

I say let's universalize the principle. No state. Free markets. If you can't get there 100^%, you at least know that "getting" there is a good idea.

[Shaolin Wookie]

You are insane.

Did you not just decide that posting this insult pleased you more than not posting it?

I'm confused by your hypocrisy, and so are you. But neither is insane.

But assuming your position is correct, and that not all values are calculated rationally by individuals, who is it that does the calculation? Please be specific, as you are making a new theory of economics from scratch. I'm excited at the possibility, if it could be defended rationally, by, say, you---an individual.

[wenshu]

wenshu, you're just figuring that out now?

Just kidding. We respect all of you. And don't forget to do your holiday shopping at MartialArtsMart.com (http://www.martialartsmart.com/).

:rolleyes:

I have been advised by counsel not to answer that question as it may serve to further incriminate me.


Have you done P90X? Which program (Classic or Doubles) and for how long?

Do I look like a bored, overweight housewife?

I can see how the bleach blonde wig and ostentatious gold jewelry might throw you off but come on, really.

[wenshu]

Did you not just decide that posting this insult pleased you more than not posting it?

Apparently being a Libertarian precludes a sense of humor?

[Shaolin Wookie]

I have found that Left brain , proove it to me types who dont like the idea of a God , will not admit their is one, . Anyway as far as saying one who does for someone w/o thought of self I will give you 2 examples,
1. My dad was a Marine his group was at Guadalcanal, most were killed there was a gentle man who did a heroic deed like the old movie thing of grabbing a grenade and covering it with his body, he saved many lives, he got no reward in this life, but the next life doesnt matter because none acknowledge God. Sure he got a medal or should I say his family did but it didnt bemnefit him at all.
2. Dr White of Austin Texas, a Neuro Surgeon, he checked on my son 2x per day for a full week , ordered 2 MRI's and other tests, to check for possible brain damage, then gave my son a pair of little blue shoes, when he was Dc'd. We were informed everyday by him that our son was going to be fine, and he is. When we asked for a bill he said dont worry about it , when we looked for a hospital bill of the MRI's there was none, we had to hunt him down to thank him , he was embarrased to be thanked, HE NEVER RECEIVED A DIME, well if this isnt selfless nothing is, if you dont think it is wait till your kid is born and he/she has to be in the Neonatal ICU. You will feel different then, Oh and btw Dr white sends a birthday card to my son every year on his birthday. KC

I'll tackle the first one. Again--do not confuse selfish acts with narcissism. So, a soldier jumps on a grenade. Why does he do so? Does he trip? Why didn't he hang back with the rest of the guys?

Now, he jumps on the grenade in order to prevent the other soldiers from being harmed or killed. He prefers that they live, and that he himself die. He therefore exercises a selfish motive---to sacrifice himself for the sake of others. This is selfless only in the sense that he cannot be repaid for his actions. But the other guys don't owe him anything, in a real sense. They feel gratitude, as well they should, but they don't owe him anything in exchange because they didn't ask him to jump on the grenade. For all they know, the grenade might not have killed anyone, or maybe it only would have killed one other guy and given several others minor flesh wounds. So, which is better--that one guy dies intentionally, or that another dies incidentally and several others get minor flesh wounds? Hard to say, right? And what if nobody died, and one guy lost a leg, another guy lost an arm, and two others get blinded by shrapnel. Is the cost of one guys death better than those fractional losses? Grisly math, if you care to calculate them.

It's a bad example. Nevermind that these guys are out to kill a bunch of poor and starving Japanese farmers who are being forced into battle by imperial blowhards. Hard to find the moral high ground in the larger picture.

[Shaolin Wookie]

As for hte doctor. He's a good man, but a poor businessman if he universalizes the principle. He can't offer those same services to everyone. You, KC, were very fortunate. And I applaud the doctor for his kindness. BUt I wonder if you think that everyone who walked into his office received the same services.

Impossible. So he is at least selfish 90% of the time, right? And why does he care for your son to this day? Obviously, it reminds him of a good deed he has done without asking for repayment. This is selfish, but not narcissistic. It is admirable...and selfish.

[wenshu]

But assuming your position is correct, and that not all values are calculated rationally by individuals, who is it that does the calculation? Please be specific, as you are making a new theory of economics from scratch.

Let us first address the pivotal assumption underlying your not so subtly loaded question that the existence of a subject that calculates a value judgment is dependent on it's own rationality.

This isn't a community college first year seminar; begging the question isn't going to cut it.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Let us first address the pivotal assumption underlying your not so subtly loaded question that the existence of a subject that calculates a value judgment is dependent on it's own rationality.

This isn't a community college first year seminar; begging the question isn't going to cut it.

"Rationality" then must be defined clearly, right? If you're saying that person A is rational because most people agree that his actions will achieve their ends, then you are making a value judgment (a subjective appraisal). If you are saying that person A is undertaking a course of action (using means for ends) because he believes that this course of action will prove profitable (psychic or otherwise), then you are not making a value judgment. But the definition changed, didn't it?

You're just arguing semantics. I'm stating a universal fact. If I am incorrect--and that is always possible--then you must be able to disprove individual rationality. Good luck (as you will require means [language, signs, symbols, evidence, this webboard, and your thoughts] to achieve your end [proving that I am incorrect]). :)

And this does sound like a community college seminar. Your responses are "I'm right, and you're wrong," or "You're insane." That's about the quality of thought I expect from a third-rate community college student (or someone who overpaid for his education to get "elite" nonsense" from accreddited fools).

[kwaichang]

The doctor provides care for many w/o payment, he performs surgery on babies invitro because he is one of the few that can, he pays over 125,000 a year in malpractice insurance. He may be a poor business man that may be true but he has what he needs, never complains, \
To judge by ones own standards is folley to judge the soldier and what would have happened to others maybe , is crazy . there is only the act all else is speculation at best. The acts stand for themselves, KC:)

[Shaolin Wookie]

The doctor provides care for many w/o payment, he performs surgery on babies invitro because he is one of the few that can, he pays over 125,000 a year in malpractice insurance. He may be a poor business man that may be true but he has what he needs, never complains, \
To judge by ones own standards is folley to judge the soldier and what would have happened to others maybe , is crazy . there is only the act all else is speculation at best. The acts stand for themselves, KC:)

But are you not judging by your own standards of heroism based on the belief that the soldier who jumps on a grenade is in fact protecting all others from possible harms, rather than impending 100% mass death? The acts can't stand for themselves because you're trying to prove that his action is selfless---not that he jumped on the grenade in a historical sense. Too many assumptions are involved.

You may have hte right evidence for the wrong argument.;)

[wenshu]

You're so transparent that not only do I know what your counter is going to be before you post it, I can explicate it in a more clear and concise fashion.

All individuals make judgments.

All individuals judge that they themselves are rational.

Therefore all judgments made by individuals are rational.


"Rationality" then must be defined clearly, right? If you're saying that person A is rational because most people agree that his actions will achieve their ends, then you are making a value judgment (a subjective appraisal).

Again, begging the question. Underlying assumption that attempts to prove your premise within the wording of the question itself; the definition of rationality is that a subjects perceives that it's own actions work towards a goal.

Within that alone there is a whole host of unaddressed assumptions.

Reducing things to core principles is an exercise in futility when you've already assumed what those core principles are going to be.

[Old Noob]

He prefers that they live, and that he himself die. He therefore exercises a selfish motive---to sacrifice himself for the sake of others. This is selfless only in the sense that he cannot be repaid for his actions. But the other guys don't owe him anything, in a real sense.

I think this is a strain and that you're essentially redifining terms. Just by labelling sacrificing oneself so that other might live "selfish" doesn't make it so. KC said, "this is selfless," and you didn't really do anything other than say, "no, this is selfish." That's not a strong argument to me.

With a nod to the prior post that actions don't have a moral component and are merely labelled by people who impose their judgments on the action, I'd still posit that the general meaning of a selfless act is an act done without regard for any benefit to one's self derived from that act whereas a selfish act is an act done with due consideration of some benefit to one's self as a consequence of the act. Applying those fairly widely used definitions to the example provided by KC, I don't see how you can simply label the Marine's action as "selfish." You could argue that he was motivated by the desire to be famous, to be respected in death by his peers, or to win the MOH poshumously, all of which could be labelved as selfish. That is, however, a lot of analysis to attribute to someone who makes the decision to throw himself on the grenage in a split second. It's much more likely that the Marine instinctually threw himself on the grenade because he believed doing so would save his brothers who he suffered with day after day.

The extracurricular talk about the frame of reference concerning the propriety of the Marine Corps actions in WWII in Guadal Canal are not relevant to whether the individual Marine's actions were selfless or selfish.

Also, I'd like to here Syn7's analysis of the guy who throws himself on the grenade. I'm a cynic and a Hobbesian but I still believe that selfless acts, while rare, exist.

[Judge Pen]

Why don't you two just go get a room? :eek:

[kwaichang]

SW normally I respect what you say , however it is apparent you have never seen the results of a live grenade, it would have killed many , to sacrifice ones life for others is the greatest selfless deed , you receive no pmt no glory in this life what ever the reason. all I know is what was told to me by someone who was there. Heres another thought , If a man believes in god and he sacrifices his life then is that suicide ? Just curious to your thought on that? KC:)

[wenshu]

"Rationality" then must be defined clearly, right? If you're saying that person A is rational because most people agree that his actions will achieve their ends, then you are making a value judgment (a subjective appraisal). If you are saying that person A is undertaking a course of action (using means for ends) because he believes that this course of action will prove profitable (psychic or otherwise), then you are not making a value judgment. But the definition changed, didn't it?

You're just arguing semantics. I'm stating a universal fact. If I am incorrect--and that is always possible--then you must be able to disprove individual rationality. Good luck (as you will require means [language, signs, symbols, evidence, this webboard, and your thoughts] to achieve your end [proving that I am incorrect]). :)

And this does sound like a community college seminar. Your responses are "I'm right, and you're wrong," or "You're insane." That's about the quality of thought I expect from a third-rate community college student (or someone who overpaid for his education to get "elite" nonsense" from accreddited fools).

If I am just arguing semantics with catcalls of "I'm right and you're not", why did you need 3 paragraphs just to point that out?

[kwaichang]

While it is just a Movie you need to see Saving Private Ryan , Band of Brothers and D-Day. KC

[Shaolin Wookie]

Food for thought, Wenshu. Let's assume that two people pose an argument, like KC and myself. He argues that there are selfless actions, but he confuses the meaning of "selfish" with "narcissistic." He cannot prove "selfless" actions, but only actions that cannot be repaid (either through lack of resources or the death of a soldier). These are not "selfless," but selfish and kind. Kindness does not preclude selfishness, since kindness is aiming at a state of affairs that one prefers (where more people act kindly towards their brothers) than one in which everyone acted narcissistically. This subjective preference is de facto selfish.

So, if KC has argued rationally, and he has, and yet cannot make the argument that he wished to make because he used the wrong means (the wrong definition of "selfish" by having it connote "narcissism"), then we assume that some people can act rationally and still fail to achieve their ends. If we accept this state of affairs, then your definition of "rationality" falls short of the mark, does it not? Your definition would presuppose some transcendantly right rationality---perfect knowledge, or omniscience--without the threat of failure.

I'm not saying I'm right (but instead that the argument I made [and i did not create it] holds), but I am saying that your'e wrong. You're rational, but also wrong. And if you have no hankering for logic, then you'll continue to be wrong as long as you value your provisional definition of rationality.:)

[Judge Pen]

Also, I'd like to here Syn7's analysis of the guy who throws himself on the grenade. I'm a cynic and a Hobbesian but I still believe that selfless acts, while rare, exist.

Belief is all we have (whether rational or delusional they are mine). Our actions can only be defined by our motiviations (which are only known to us) and for others to attempt to define them is futile as they are only defining their perceptions of their actions.

We can express all of this in a thousand different hypotheticals, theroms and classical philosphical models but it all matters not.

[Judge Pen]

Food for thought, Wenshu. Let's assume that two people pose an argument, like KC and myself. He argues that there are selfless actions, but he confuses the meaning of "selfish" with "narcissistic." He cannot prove "selfless" actions, but only actions that cannot be repaid (either through lack of resources or the death of a soldier). These are not "selfless," but selfish and kind. Kindness does not preclude selfishness, since kindness is aiming at a state of affairs that one prefers (where more people act kindly towards their brothers) than one in which everyone acted narcissistically. This subjective preference is de facto selfish.

So, if KC has argued rationally, and he has, and yet cannot make the argument that he wished to make because he used the wrong means (the wrong definition of "selfish" by having it connote "narcissism"), then we assume that some people can act rationally and still fail to achieve their ends. If we accept this state of affairs, then your definition of "rationality" falls short of the mark, does it not? Your definition would presuppose some transcendantly right rationality---perfect knowledge, or omniscience--without the threat of failure.

I'm not saying I'm right (but instead that the argument I made [and i did not create it] holds), but I am saying that your'e wrong. You're rational, but also wrong. And if you have no hankering for logic, then you'll continue to be wrong as long as you value your provisional definition of rationality.:)

So your definition of selfish is "willing" or "with intent to act"? What is your definition of altruism?

[Shaolin Wookie]

SW normally I respect what you say , however it is apparent you have never seen the results of a live grenade, it would have killed many , to sacrifice ones life for others is the greatest selfless deed , you receive no pmt no glory in this life what ever the reason. all I know is what was told to me by someone who was there. Heres another thought , If a man believes in god and he sacrifices his life then is that suicide ? Just curious to your thought on that? KC:)

Yes. He killed himself. That's the definition of suicide.

"Sui" = oneself, "cide" being the "putting to death" that is also evident in "****cide," "fratricide," "regicide," "insecticide" etc.

Is it also something else when a man self-annihilates for the sake of God? I don't know. That depends on how you interpret symbols. The men who flew planes into the Twin Towers committed sucide but also claimed to be acting in God's will. Two separate arguments there. One (the latteR) requires more assumptions than a mere definition of causality (self-annihilation).

[Shaolin Wookie]

So your definition of selfish is "willing" or "with intent to act"? What is your definition of altruism?

Same thing as kindness. Again, a fallacious notion if it denies selfish actions. I'm not a Randian, so I don't condemn altruism as long as it is voluntary. I'm sure Obama would argue that Obamacare is altruistic. I tend to disagree, when he ( a rich man) has to reach into my pockets ( a poor man) to give to others. I tend to believe that this is theft, plain and simple. Altruism very much depends on subjective appraisal, right? Where violence and coercion are present, altruism is impossible. Where violence and coercion are absent, it is possible. But it's still selfish.

[wenshu]

Food for thought, Wenshu. Let's assume that two people pose an argument, like KC and myself. He argues that there are selfless actions, but he confuses the meaning of "selfish" with "narcissistic." He cannot prove "selfless" actions, but only actions that cannot be repaid (either through lack of resources or the death of a soldier). These are not "selfless," but selfish and kind. Kindness does not preclude selfishness, since kindness is aiming at a state of affairs that one prefers (where more people act kindly towards their brothers) than one in which everyone acted narcissistically. This subjective preference is de facto selfish.

So, if KC has argued rationally, and he has, and yet cannot make the argument that he wished to make because he used the wrong means (the wrong definition of "selfish" by having it connote "narcissism"), then we assume that some people can act rationally and still fail to achieve their ends. If we accept this state of affairs, then your definition of "rationality" falls short of the mark, does it not? Your definition would presuppose some transcendantly right rationality---perfect knowledge, or omniscience--without the threat of failure.

I'm not saying I'm right (but instead that the argument I made [and i did not create it] holds), but I am saying that your'e wrong. You're rational, but also wrong. And if you have no hankering for logic, then you'll continue to be wrong as long as you value your provisional definition of rationality.:)

Name dropping kwaichang in an argument is a masterwork of obfuscation almost on par with the unattributed mangling of Hegel.

Narcissism, kindness, selfishness and selflessness are even more nebulously defined value judgments than what you started with and you still refuse to even attempt to address your core assumption about rationality.

Now your assumptions have veered from the definition of rationality to what my definition of rationality is. I've posited no such thing; I've merely pointed out the repetitive, simplistic underlying assumptions you insert into your arguments by means of logical fallacy.

So tell me, Professor, what is my definition of rationality?

[sean_stonehart]

Why don't you two just go get a room? :eek:

I think this already happened & now this is cuddling for them ... :D

[wenshu]

You ladies just like to watch don't you.

[sean_stonehart]

You ladies just like to watch don't you.

Only if somebody is yelling "Daddy was a bad, bad boy..." ... otherwise, nah it's not entertaining enough.

[wenshu]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lc30jvzzBK1qe0eclo1_500.gif

[sean_stonehart]

... Zed ...

[Judge Pen]

Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead.

[Lucas]

this is as close as you are going to get for a 'selfless act'

http://tapordiecompany.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/burning-monk.jpg

[Shaolin Wookie]

Then lets apply the argument to the matter at hand. Is sin the guilty of theft? No. He didn't steal anything.

Is he guilty of fraud? Maybe. He admits to misrepresenting SOME of what he has taught, even though he prefaced much with legends, not facts. And much misinformation was passed off as fact by over zealous students.

Is he guilty of theft? No. He didn't take anything that he didn't pay for---including hskwarrior's form.

Is GM sin's "selfless" claim of humility in the deposition of any validity? Nope. Not by definition, and not even contextually.

Is the art fraudulent? No, as long as it teaches self-defense.

Is it shaolin--for real shaolin? In part, but not in whole. The ratio is debatable.

The thread is at a standstill until more info about Chung yen arrives

[Lucas]

Were the term applicable to martial arts, I would say he is guilty of a weird form of possible martial malpractice. when you take stuff you dont really understand and teach it to people and make them think you know what you are about and understand what you are teaching, but you dont, that is not ethical or moral, and can lead to someone getting seriously hurt by thinking they are more competent than they are. You can't look at the guys that can make the stuff work, they are the exception, not the rule.

We dont even have to argue that he not only lied about legends of origin, but lied about knowing what he was doing. Anyone who is familiar with taijiquan can look at him doing any taiji and know he does not understand taijiquan.

[Shaolin Wookie]

I guess that sounds about right. But I would say that 90% of all knife defenses taught by CMA are guilty of malpractice, as I once learned not too long ago.

[Lucas]

I guess that sounds about right. But I would say that 90% of all knife defenses taught by CMA are guilty of malpractice, as I once learned not too long ago.

I agree with you. Actually, I think a vast amount of cma schools are guilty of this.

[Kellen Bassette]

Well, fact is merely consensus. Truth is something else altogether.

Absolutely...



But you are right. What I identify as red may appear as yellow in your mind despite the "fact" that we agree that what we are looking at is called red.



I've always thought of this as well...on a sort of related note, musicians nearly universally attest to receiving impressions of color from the different keys, however it seems all musicians do not "see" the music as the same colors...so if tone and color are wired together in our brains shouldn't we all perceive the key of E as the same color...off topic but you made me think of it...




"PERIOD" was my opinion. The rest is based on observation. I can't prove it definitively, but I can do a better job at producing examples on my end than anyone can from the other end. That much you must concede.

Conceded.

[Kellen Bassette]

I guess that sounds about right. But I would say that 90% of all knife defenses taught by CMA are guilty of malpractice, as I once learned not too long ago.

Couldn't agree more. I was in a class doing knife disarming recently, after practicing several drills with rubber knives the instructor said, "now spar freely, one with the knife, one without and go for the disarm, but if the blade so much as touches you anywhere, you got cut. If you get cut switch the knife to the other person.

Of course most people couldn't take the knife without getting "cut" somewhere, when the partner was non compliant. So the lesson was, "this is how it works in the real world." If you fight unarmed against a knife be prepared to be cut, better to run or find a longer weapon. I had a lot of respect for him taking peoples confidence away, after they were just feeling good about disarming there compliant partners in the preceding drill...we need reality in training.

[wenshu]

What I identify as red may appear as yellow in your mind despite the "fact" that we agree that what we are looking at is called red.


Sort of related note, musicians nearly universally attest to receiving impressions of color from the different keys, however it seems all musicians do not "see" the music as the same colors...so if tone and color are wired together in our brains shouldn't we all perceive the key of E as the same color...off topic but you made me think of it...


Color and tone are merely our central nervous system's interpretation of wavelengths; both measurable independently of their respective modes of perception.

Synesthesia is completely dependent on the subjects nervous system so there is no reason that synesthetes would perceive the same connection between tone and color. Or people with Ordinal Linguistic Personification perceive that the same numbers have the same personalities.

You can argue that the perception of the color red is variable among subjects but both subjects are encountering the same wavelength.

[GeneChing]

You ladies just like to watch don't you. For this multiple car crash of thread, yea, count me among the rubberneckers.

[sean_stonehart]

For this multiple car crash of thread, yea, count me among the rubberneckers.

Yeah baby yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kellen Bassette]

Color and tone are merely our central nervous system's interpretation of wavelengths; both measurable independently of their respective modes of perception.

Synesthesia is completely dependent on the subjects nervous system so there is no reason that synesthetes would perceive the same connection between tone and color. Or people with Ordinal Linguistic Personification perceive that the same numbers have the same personalities.

You can argue that the perception of the color red is variable among subjects but both subjects are encountering the same wavelength.

I hadn't heard of attributing personalities to numbers..interesting...I wonder how much of it is simply learned. Western music theory, with the exception of octaves, has no basis in nature. We are taught that notes outside of the 12 equal tempered notes in western music are "out of tune." But if I detune them all equally only someone with perfect pitch could tell the difference.

Middle Eastern music is full of unequal temperament and has many micro tones that don't exist in western music..but they don't perceive this as "wrong or out of tune"...maybe that's why some cultures don't perceive horrifically unmatched colors as so...they were taught that those shades harmonize...:D

[wenshu]

For this multiple car crash of thread, yea, count me among the rubberneckers.

Cars?

http://c.shld.net/rpx/i/s/pi/mp/7716/1653368401p?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwpms2063.com%2Fimages %2FCTM%2Fhs-580B.jpg&d=4160d8f0352f232f66236e716ae37541f13281ea


I hadn't heard of attributing personalities to numbers..interesting...I wonder how much of it is simply learned.
I experienced it distinctively at a very early age (as early as I can remember) and it became less and less distinct as I matured, for whatever that is worth.


Middle Eastern music is full of unequal temperament and has many micro tones that don't exist in western music..but they don't perceive this as "wrong or out of tune"...maybe that's why some cultures don't perceive horrifically unmatched colors as so...they were taught that those shades harmonize...:D

Kind of like mainland Chinese and racism.

Die grenzen meiner kultur sind die grenzen meiner welt.

[Empty_Cup]

For this multiple car crash of thread, yea, count me among the rubberneckers.

I don't know who you think is still on the road at this point.

[Kellen Bassette]

Cars?

http://c.shld.net/rpx/i/s/pi/mp/7716/1653368401p?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwpms2063.com%2Fimages %2FCTM%2Fhs-580B.jpg&d=4160d8f0352f232f66236e716ae37541f13281ea


Kind of like mainland Chinese and racism.

Die grenzen meiner kultur sind die grenzen meiner welt.

Sad but true.

[GeneChing]

I don't know who you think is still on the road at this point. Good point.

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/8/3/2/52832.jpg?v=1

[sean_stonehart]

Good point.

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/8/3/2/52832.jpg?v=1

Nice... I may order one of those over a plain ol' Hoveround...

[Judge Pen]

Nice... I may order one of those over a plain ol' Hoveround...

I'd prefer the popemobile. At least it's bulletproof.

[Judge Pen]

Or the ****ation Alley Crawler. Will go through anything.

[sean_stonehart]

Or the ****ation Alley Crawler. Will go through anything.

You for the win ...

[wenshu]

Y'all think it's funny till I roll through in my gurhka

http://kephrarubin.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/gurkha-f5-black-1024x627.jpg

[Judge Pen]

Y'all think it's funny till I roll through in my gurhka

http://kephrarubin.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/gurkha-f5-black-1024x627.jpg

Does that come with a vagina?

[Lucas]

http://www.originalprop.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Houston-Classic-Weekend-Batman-Batmobile-Movie-Prop-Car-Auction-01.jpg

http://carsmedia.ign.com/cars/image/article/813/813500/batman-monster-truck-20070817113430022-000.jpg

[Syn7]

I'm familiar with the concept, but I don't see the point when it comes to religion.

As far as I'm concerned, a situation like this is the only time you need a thought experiment. Why would you even use a thought experiment if you could just do an applicable experiment? That's what they are for, philosophy and theory. Like Schrodingers Cat. Philosophy is a thought experiment. The concept of god could be described as such if it wasn't for the whole blind faith thing. It sure is from my perspective.

[Syn7]

The Austrians are the strongest on this position.

Take the idea of collective knowledge (consensus) and collective action. Collective knowledge, such as what accrues in textbooks, is individually known and subject to refutation--if it is not axiomatic in the way that mathematics and human action are. Some people argue that reality is a fiction. This is funny. An argument that denies reality requires language, time, space (as prerequisites for speech unfolding sequentially in a comprehensible manner), an audience (and hence another being in the spatial-temporal frame), value-driven behavior ( convincing others that reality is false), and the presupposition that the original premise could be true (and hence that all things are not false.

Anyways...so some of you we're saying that nothing could be proven? You guys need some Aristotle, Kant, or Mises, and fast!


Proof comes with assumptions.

And for JP, everything wook is saying IS a thought experiment.

[Syn7]

I have found that Left brain , proove it to me types who dont like the idea of a God , will not admit their is one, . Anyway as far as saying one who does for someone w/o thought of self I will give you 2 examples,
1. My dad was a Marine his group was at Guadalcanal, most were killed there was a gentle man who did a heroic deed like the old movie thing of grabbing a grenade and covering it with his body, he saved many lives, he got no reward in this life, but the next life doesnt matter because none acknowledge God. Sure he got a medal or should I say his family did but it didnt bemnefit him at all.
2. Dr White of Austin Texas, a Neuro Surgeon, he checked on my son 2x per day for a full week , ordered 2 MRI's and other tests, to check for possible brain damage, then gave my son a pair of little blue shoes, when he was Dc'd. We were informed everyday by him that our son was going to be fine, and he is. When we asked for a bill he said dont worry about it , when we looked for a hospital bill of the MRI's there was none, we had to hunt him down to thank him , he was embarrased to be thanked, HE NEVER RECEIVED A DIME, well if this isnt selfless nothing is, if you dont think it is wait till your kid is born and he/she has to be in the Neonatal ICU. You will feel different then, Oh and btw Dr white sends a birthday card to my son every year on his birthday. KC


Sure. But they all had some form of satisfaction, even if it was breif, in the case of the granade scenario. He did it because HE wanted to save others. HE, as in SELF.

As for the left brain comment, you can't be an engineer without being able to exploit both. You can't do thought experiments without both. Taking injury and MASSIVE defect out of the equation, nobody is left or right brained.

[Syn7]

It's a bad example. Nevermind that these guys are out to kill a bunch of poor and starving Japanese farmers who are being forced into battle by imperial blowhards. Hard to find the moral high ground in the larger picture.

All examples are bad examples because there simply is no such thing as an unselfish act. He isn't getting it, and he won't get it, because he doesn't want to. He sees selfish and goes negative with it thus forcing his own delusional mind to conform to what is comfortable. It's just that simple.

[Syn7]

As for hte doctor. He's a good man, but a poor businessman if he universalizes the principle. He can't offer those same services to everyone. You, KC, were very fortunate. And I applaud the doctor for his kindness. BUt I wonder if you think that everyone who walked into his office received the same services.

Impossible. So he is at least selfish 90% of the time, right? And why does he care for your son to this day? Obviously, it reminds him of a good deed he has done without asking for repayment. This is selfish, but not narcissistic. It is admirable...and selfish.

It doesn't matter how he felt. He did it, his self, therefore it was selfish. I don't understand why people find this so difficult. Motivation is secondary. I can tackle it that way too. Say he got a warm fuzzy from helping a sick kid for free, but you don't even need to go there. All our actions originate from the self therefore it is selfish. No need to dumb it down any ****her. I tried that approach, it didn't take.

And for the record, I don't need to read anyone elses work to verify this opinion. My grandfather put the idea in my head when I was like 14 and I worked the rest out for myself. It really isn't all that complicated if you let go of your assumptions. Something else he taught me. In thought experiment we have structured assumptions for the purpose of the experiment, all others must be considered but held separate.
Although I did read much of what you suggested. But not all their work. There just isn't enough time.

[Syn7]

The doctor provides care for many w/o payment, he performs surgery on babies invitro because he is one of the few that can, he pays over 125,000 a year in malpractice insurance. He may be a poor business man that may be true but he has what he needs, never complains, \
To judge by ones own standards is folley to judge the soldier and what would have happened to others maybe , is crazy . there is only the act all else is speculation at best. The acts stand for themselves, KC:)

Yes, acts of individuals with motivation that comes from within before anything else.

Look, I'll say this as nicely as I can. You don't have the background for this convo. You simply don't have enough foundation and I can only dumb this down so far.

[Syn7]

Why don't you two just go get a room? :eek:

He would just cry the whole time.

[Syn7]

While it is just a Movie you need to see Saving Private Ryan , Band of Brothers and D-Day. KC

Seriously, if you really wanna have this convo, you need to let go of many assumptions.

[Syn7]

Belief is all we have (whether rational or delusional they are mine). Our actions can only be defined by our motiviations (which are only known to us) and for others to attempt to define them is futile as they are only defining their perceptions of their actions.

We can express all of this in a thousand different hypotheticals, theroms and classical philosphical models but it all matters not.

L A W Y E R !

:p

[Syn7]

Were the term applicable to martial arts, I would say he is guilty of a weird form of possible martial malpractice. when you take stuff you dont really understand and teach it to people and make them think you know what you are about and understand what you are teaching, but you dont, that is not ethical or moral, and can lead to someone getting seriously hurt by thinking they are more competent than they are. You can't look at the guys that can make the stuff work, they are the exception, not the rule.

We dont even have to argue that he not only lied about legends of origin, but lied about knowing what he was doing. Anyone who is familiar with taijiquan can look at him doing any taiji and know he does not understand taijiquan.

No doubt. In my school, for every lazy kid, there are 20 kids who work hard and show a TON of progress and skill for the time put in. And since it's a small school, minuscule compared to SD, there are only like two lazy kids. Everyone who put in the time can make their stuff work for them. And if you met the lazy kids parents, you would see why they are lazy. That being said, the brother is actually coming around and has the first two forms down pretty well from what I hear. There are teens there who show strong ging in all their movements. Not to be a huge dick but they show a kind of power I haven't even seen in The, let alone any of his disciples.

BTW... Still waiting for a good display of ging. I asked a while ago and even put up an example from my own lineage to show what I'm asking for. I've seen it in Hung Sing, now I wanna see it in SD. Anyone?

[Syn7]

I've always thought of this as well...on a sort of related note, musicians nearly universally attest to receiving impressions of color from the different keys, however it seems all musicians do not "see" the music as the same colors...so if tone and color are wired together in our brains shouldn't we all perceive the key of E as the same color...off topic but you made me think of it...

Curious. Any reference material?

[Syn7]

For this multiple car crash of thread, yea, count me among the rubberneckers.

Yes, but you must admit, this thread has become much better in the last day or so!

I got bored of Sin The. But since I rubbed so many the wrong way, I figured I would start arguing other points that I find more interesting and see what pops up.

[Syn7]

Good point.

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/8/3/2/52832.jpg?v=1

Imagine if Walmart had these at the door. Black Friday would have been crispy!

I imagine the junk food section would be full of bodies! Bunch of fat greasy ****ers!

I find it absolutely dysfunctional when I see people trample others for a sweet deal on a lower brand LCD.

[Syn7]

Where did everyone go?

I am programming microcontrollers and it is very slow and tedious. I need some entertainment while I have to just sit here and click YES over and over and over and over and over......................

[Kellen Bassette]

Curious. Any reference material?

I've never actually done any reading on the subject..but if you do a search on "musicians see color" or something to that effect you'll get plenty of hits.

My experience comes from playing and recording with a good deal of musicians and having this conversation many times...nearly every long time musician I've talked to attests to the same thing and have had the discussion so many times they take it as matter of fact. Some people use the impression to help when learning songs by ear....

[kwaichang]

So Syn 7 is a programmer and is unable to work with people so he works with machines , thinking he is as smart as people who work with people he reads alot of crap thinking that will replace the reality of living something. What a joke that is all you have to say man you work with computers that says it all. Why have i wasted all this time talking to baby that can only count to 0 and 1.

[Syn7]

Assumptions. You have no idea what my experiences are or are not. I judge you on what you write, not on what I think you do or do not do outside of KFM.

I am not a programmer. I can write code, but usually it's just easier to build off other peoples work that meets similar needs to my own. I manipulate the code to work with whatever I need it to do. I am programming microcontrollers in order to achieve a mechanical objective. I understand this is difficult for you to grasp, you see the word program and you assume I write code. You see, these are the leaps in simple logic that I'm talking about. You jump to way too many conclusions without thinking it thru far enough.

About 10 years ago I was working (when I say work, I mean donating my time) with a Mechanical Engineer on finding creative solutions for people with disabilities. Usually building some rig or another to help them maintain a more consistent quality of life. How's that for working with people? I also managed and maintained a medium sized distribution network, a network of PEOPLE! How does that fit with your assumption? Man you are dumb. You get all insulted then lash out all emotional and try to convince yourself you are being objective.

My people skills don't suck, I purposely antagonize you. I've been up front about that from the beginning. I make no secret of the fact that I think you are challenged.

Maybe you are good at your job, maybe not. But you most certainly aren't able to contribute to any of these topics in any sort of meaningful way.


The dumbest thing people do is act like they know things they don't actually know. It always shines thru.

[kwaichang]

[QUOTE= I judge you on what you write, not on what I think you do or do not do outside of KFM.

I am not a programmer. I can write code, but usually it's just easier to build off other peoples work that meets similar needs to my own. I manipulate the code to work with whatever I need it to do.
I make no secret of the fact that I think you are challenged.

The dumbest thing people do is act like they know things they don't actually know. It always shines thru.[/QUOTE]

You steal other peoples work and try to change it to take credit for something you arent smart enough to develop for your self.
You Judge and think I am challenged by what is written here? and you call me challenged. LOL
It shines through alright you are just a punk man plain and simple a Kung fu wanna be so dazzle some with a few stolen words , no original thoughts of your own. You are a thief like you judge Sin The to be. KC

[Syn7]

You can't even quote properly... Volumes, son, VOLUMES!!!

It's not stealing, it's open source. The whole point is for others to build off it and use it for new ideas. It's called progress minus the sheer greed of ownership. All credit goes where credit is due. Unlike Sin The, who lies for acceptance and money from people like you. Another example of you jumping to emotional conclusions. Too easy, lol... You need to take Wooks class, son!

Why would I rewrite hours of code when I can just source it? Crowd sourcing is a valuable tool. Hard for some to understand, yes, but the next level it is!

[kwaichang]

The quote is straight from what you wrote. I dont mind being dumb , although I am not, better to be thought a fool than proven one , as yourself. You steal and develop it not your own work but build off others, cant even develop your own original thought. You are a Joke man . If you think I am emotional about your rantings you are the Joke , you are so easy to bait. Like a babe in the woods. Want some candy little boy. yopu better go work out a little before you can play with the big boys. all your words do here is get your little butt kicked in debate and life.

[Syn7]

FACEPALM!

You gettin' angry, squirt?

I'm sorry you don't understand the open source concept. Calling me a thief for that is like me calling you a thief for using a technique you read in a book that was published with the intention of instructing and sharing ideas.

[-N-]

Epic thread is epic.

[kwaichang]

Yep , it is so much BS aint even funny, but I just love all the BS here . What it all boils down to is an underestimation of the other person. Reminds me of days gone by, when me and my buds would go to other MA schools and have open season. Cant do that now just alot of talk with nothing to back it up. Just , Im smarter than you nananana poopoo. So funny. as if reading about Kung Fu makes you a Bruce Leroy Sho nuf. KC

[Judge Pen]

Yep , it is so much BS aint even funny, but I just love all the BS here . What it all boils down to is an underestimation of the other person. Reminds me of days gone by, when me and my buds would go to other MA schools and have open season. Cant do that now just alot of talk with nothing to back it up. Just , Im smarter than you nananana poopoo. So funny. as if reading about Kung Fu makes you a Bruce Leroy Sho nuf. KC

I have the glow! No. Wait. Maybe I'm just drunk. :D

[sean_stonehart]

Yeah... you're drunk & have a flash light handy... :D;):D

[bawang]

Yep , it is so much BS aint even funny, but I just love all the BS here . What it all boils down to is an underestimation of the other person. Reminds me of days gone by, when me and my buds would go to other MA schools and have open season. Cant do that now just alot of talk with nothing to back it up. Just , Im smarter than you nananana poopoo. So funny. as if reading about Kung Fu makes you a Bruce Leroy Sho nuf. KC

you talk like woman.

[wenshu]

The dumbest thing people do is act like they know things they don't actually know. It always shines thru.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

[Lucas]

Let me Google that for you. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Open-Source+Software)

[OldandUsed]

Thread derail? Pfffft! That train left the tracks long ago. Instead of all the discussion of areas that have nothing to do with the traditional, highly respected and venerable CMA of Shaolin Do, how about we restrict our comments to the matters of SKT and SD in here and start new threads for the cerebral discussions elsewhere?

[Judge Pen]

Does anyone have any video of Sin The doing material pre 1980? I wonder if his form was as sloppy as it is now.

[Old Noob]

My people skills don't suck, I purposely antagonize you. I've been up front about that from the beginning.

Purposefuly antagonism = non-sucking people skills?

Syn7, you seem like a smart guy and a lot of what you say makes sense, but intentional, premeditated departures from common courtesy don't make them any less departures. In the stictly legal sense, a smart intentional ******* is more culpable than a dumb *******.

Just sayin'

[OldandUsed]

Have him doing Tai Chi and San Njie in the Sportscenter back around '80.

[shen ku]

Please post it, I would love to see it.

[OldandUsed]

It is a very looooonnnnnnggggg tape. Not sure if I even have it in digital.

[OTD]

It Can't be any longer then "1094 " Pages

[OldandUsed]

Okay, you got me on a technicality. I will dig that thing up and see what I can do. Don't hold it against me if I am unable to make it work. It was originally a 8mm film and I do not know if I ever converted it to a DVD.

[bodhi warrior]

Okay, you got me on a technicality. I will dig that thing up and see what I can do. Don't hold it against me if I am unable to make it work. It was originally a 8mm film and I do not know if I ever converted it to a DVD.

I'd love to see it too.

[OldandUsed]

I promise to check on it tonight when I get home.

[themeecer]

I guess that sounds about right. But I would say that 90% of all knife defenses taught by CMA are guilty of malpractice, as I once learned not too long ago.

Not my version. Before I teach the handful of techniques against it, I teach the most effective. I mime handing the person my wallet and running away. Absolute nasty stuff that even the most solid lineage can't protect you 100% from. If they need more convincing I have told some students to google knife fight photos.

[themeecer]

Why have i wasted all this time talking to baby that can only count to 0 and 1.

I see what you did there.

[themeecer]

Have you done P90X? Which program (Classic or Doubles) and for how long?

I am curious about this as well. I have done 1 full round and 2 half rounds of classic. (Half rounds because daily 3 hour commutes got in the way) Also did you use real weights or just the bands?

I did skip on the kenpo disc, I was rolling my eyes through the whole thing. I did the Cardio X disc instead and supplemented my normal form practice.

The Yoga X disc felt like it was 14 hours long. (I have the attention span of a gnat at times) But my body did feel good when I finished.

[Syn7]

Purposefuly antagonism = non-sucking people skills?

Syn7, you seem like a smart guy and a lot of what you say makes sense, but intentional, premeditated departures from common courtesy don't make them any less departures. In the stictly legal sense, a smart intentional ******* is more culpable than a dumb *******.

Just sayin'

Uhuh..... and?

I never said I couldn't be an *******. Im just not an ******* to everyone.

I would gladly take anyone on in any of these topics. KC just keeps coming back for more, thats his choice.


I think KC needs to hear a few things about how well his argument is going for him. Maybe he needs to hear it from a SD brother. Anyone here think he made as good of a case as he seems to think he has? By all means, answer. I will take silence as an admission of the obvious and yall just dont wanna tell your friend the truth.

Common courtesy and PC has weakened us as a species. Get over it. Get tough or just turtle. Up to you.

[Syn7]

Not my version. Before I teach the handful of techniques against it, I teach the most effective. I mime handing the person my wallet and running away. Absolute nasty stuff that even the most solid lineage can't protect you 100% from. If they need more convincing I have told some students to google knife fight photos.

Word. I dont care how good you are, if your opponent is in your league, the likelyhood of both bleeding is very high.

Its even worse with empty hand. I brought fists to a knife fight when I was a kid and I have a six inch scar on my abs to show for it.

[tattooedmonk]

Just to let some of you know , I bought the books Bruce was referring to.... They are the same exact forms... If you are interested in digital copies of specific forms. pm me and I will see what we can do.

[kwaichang]

You havent accomplished any thing, This is the Kung fu Forum , Shaolin Do ? you have proven nothing you dont even talk on the subjest , you discuss some Philosophical BS that has no right or wrong answer , Philosophy is just that , as far as Psychology goes it is apparent you have an inferiority complex coupled with Bi Polar disorder with Border Line Narcissistic behavior, trends. In other words so you can under stand it you are a little boy trying to prove something to your self by trying to have support from others that you dont know so you may over come your unconscious inadequacies as a human being. KC

[Syn7]

Maybe I'm just a sociopath!!! :eek:



I'm not out to prove anything. None of this actually matters. But your counter arguments suck. And if any of your SD bros. either respect you enough or have the cajones to be honest with you, they will tell you that.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Not my version. Before I teach the handful of techniques against it, I teach the most effective. I mime handing the person my wallet and running away. Absolute nasty stuff that even the most solid lineage can't protect you 100% from. If they need more convincing I have told some students to google knife fight photos.

I've heard that one from every teacher I've seen in every art, and I'll call it BS every time. I heard it in SD, in BJJ, in MMA, in Wing Chun, and elsewhere. Even a well-respected silat guru said the same thing, but with a caveat (see below). I'll call BS on that (hand over your wallet) ASAP for one reason when it is used as a cover for very weak knife defenses. Everyone agrees that avoiding knife fights is a good idea. The problem is that sometimes you can't avoid the knife fight, and you had better have valid techniques for defense---not weak defenses masked by "don't get in knife fights" adages. Besides, these warnings are always delivered prior to knife defenses. So the defenses should be as informed as possible, right?

So, Meecer, after you deliver your "don't get in knife fights" warnings, do you then mime walking down the street with your wife after a nice dinner at a restaurant late at night, when someone jumps into the street and pulls a knife on you? He doesn't want your wallet. He wants something else that you're not willing to give (your wife, for instance), or a maybe just to kill you. Maybe he's a crazy homeless schizo who thinks that you're following him so that you can posion his food, and so watns to kill you. Maybe he wants you both to get into your car and drive him to your house while he holds the knife to your wife's throat. You've got kids sleeping at home. He wants you to bring him to them. You've got a second or two to send your wife screaming for help as you run interference so that he doesn't run for her. How do you defend against his attacks?

Wouldn't it be helpful to know knife defenses that, if you get cut, minimize the damage and might allow you to save your wife (giving her time to run for help)? And wouldn't it be better to learn principles of defense that don't assume your opponent is going to committ 100% to silly attacks in wide, sweeping arcs? I tried our SD knife defenses on a silat guru during a seminar (not showing off, it was just my only knowledge base for knife defense at the time) and landed the technique perfectly. I think he saw me performing this technique periodically during his class, and so stepped in to see what I would do if he stabbed in certain ways. Eventually, I whipped out this SD technique agaisnt his underhand stab, and I stopped his arm with both of my hands in X-block fashion and proceeded to step through to apply an arm lock. I was pretty fast, and he didn't pull the knife back and cut my wrists (which the X-block gives him access to if he pulls back). Or, if he grabs one of your X-block arms with his off hand, then he can cut it easily with the bladed one (right across the wrist). I'm now convinced he was being very kind by not killing me with my own block. Most schools I've been to teach something similar--jujitsu has a thousand of these applications for throws, starting from the same point. The guru then quickly reached his knife in the "blocked" arm with his unoccupied hand, passed the blade to the free hand ( I suspect he knew exactly what I wanted to do before I did it---the motion was so obvious by nature) and stabbed me right in the solar plexus and moved towards the throat in a quarter of a second. He didn't have to be faster than me. He just had to be smarter. He then asked me why I'd commit all my energy and both of my hands to an arm when he can always reach his knife or draw another one. I had no answer for that.;) He had a couple of knives in his waistband. It was a stupid reaction, to be sure.

I then took a 3-4 hour class focused solely on one concept (how to track the blade). I learned pretty quick that if someone stabs at you (who knows how to use a knife), it's very important which hand you use to ward off the attack. I didn't learn any disarms. I learned only which hand to ward the blade off with, and then (as an attacker) how to cut someone who does something foolish. I learned much that day---and I barely learned anything formal. Doesn't make anyone invincible, but it does bring reality to the issue. If everyone is going to get cut in a knife fight, it makes sense to limit the exposure of vital cut points to your attacker. Again---most MA's offer up vital cut points amid their "defenses," which turn out to be shoddy defenses.

Just a thought, Meecer.;) Always best to have a knife yourself, for sure. But then you always have to know how to use it--to be better prepared as a cutter of others. On this point, most martial arts are teaching techniques that I now know are very dangerous when passed off as self-defense. CMA (not just SD) is the biggest offender other than Aikido.

[Shaolin Wookie]

I'm not saying that basic knife attack defenses are pointless. Beginners have to start somewhere, right? And most can only grasp basic 2-step partner drills.

What I am saying is that those defenses ought to be labeled "weak" up front, and experienced students shouldn't continue teaching or practicing those weak defenses to the point of perfection without any modification for very long. As long as an art purports to teach knife work, it ought to be well-informed. If it isn't, then it's teaching BS.

Anyways, off to train my Golden Leopards. Difficult forms, killer cardio, 2nd degree black material down here. Later....

[Old Noob]

Common courtesy and PC has weakened us as a species. Get over it. Get tough or just turtle. Up to you.

I don't disagree with this at all and, as long as you don't demand courtesy, I can't find fault with your view that it has weakened us.

That being said, societal rules are what we agreed upon to keep us out of the state of nature and, if I am going to follow them, I expect others to do so as well. Personally, I'd be happy to go back to the state of nature; I'd do okay there. I've had to explain to exceedingly rude people a couple of times that these quaint little rules are the only things standing between me and all of their stuff, to include their physical well-being. I feel you on this.

But, if another person doesn't belong in an argument, you know you only fuel that participation by antagonizing that person. If you were truly that much more enlightened, you'd ignore it; not because its weak and PC but becuase you know its a waste of time. If wasting time is your goal, however, you're all good.

[Old Noob]

Two statistically true things about knife attacks and physical attacks generally:

1. In knife attacks, you will be cut; and
2. In cases of physical attack, survival rates are statistically higher if you resist whether the assailant is armed with a gun, a knife, or is unarmed.

Consequently, I'm not sure that I'd advise handing over the wallet. I don think need to understand the reality of the situation and be taught techniques that will allow themselves to extract themselves from the situation with the least damage possible. I personally prefer the methods articulated in Kill or Get Killed; they take a no BS view of what your chances and options are when confronted with a knife. And yes, it's a book.

[JSE]

FWIW i recently taught a knife defense class. I started the class by stating the following.

Rule 1 RUN!!! This is only if put in a life or death situation you cannot get away from.
Rule 2. You WILL get cut. These techniques "might" allow you to control where.

I gave no delusions of grandeur that anything taught would protect them from the blade. Just possibly increase the chance of survival.

As far as handing over the wallet, I have always been taught not to just hand it to the person. To throw it away from them. If they go for the wallet, run. If they do not, they probably were not solely interested in it anyway, time for plan B. Thoughts?

[themeecer]

I am sure classes/seminars with someone who specializes in knife fights would be useful. (Even though we are speaking about a very rare occurrence) I have not had that opportunity. I do not want to create some false bravado in my students that can get them seriously hurt or killed. Obviously a possession such as a wallet, phone, or vehicle isn't worth it .. a loved one is.

As for having my own weapons around, except at work I am normally always very close to a weapon. In my home it is mostly because I have had copperhead snakes inside and less about intruders.

JSE, I like the idea of tossing the wallet to the side or maybe even at them as you make your get away.

[Jimbo]

FWIW,
For such a possible scenario, it might be wise to carry two wallets; one for anything with your identification, and the other with your cash. Then if you must toss that wallet, at least you aren't giving him access to where you live, your accounts and other personal info.

[MasterKiller]

Frank doing CLF:

https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/11/19/ZgzUoHQFdE20Kkbvvzkhjw2.gif

:D:D:D:D

[Lucas]

omg so mean but that gif is freaking funny

[themeecer]

Frank doing CLF:

https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/11/19/ZgzUoHQFdE20Kkbvvzkhjw2.gif

:D:D:D:D

Maybe he was fighting off a bee.

[Lucas]

I like his footwork :D

[hskwarrior]

https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/11/19/ZgzUoHQFdE20Kkbvvzkhjw2.gif

yeah looks more like your momma nacka! especially since i'm not that big. fool.

your mom is SHH!


Maybe he was fighting off a bee.

shut up son. don't speak about your father that way. geek.

[hskwarrior]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR6Ri0DnZ7B7N5z3VfmuW8CKtrr7a87L IUB2pAkzSR8YkvWqKsD

[hskwarrior]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/65043_10151189523227732_1777192012_n.jpg

MK'S PRIVATE STOCK OF HIM N HIS LOVER

http://s3.favim.com/orig/45/fashion-gay-love-man-men-Favim.com-410775.jpg

[Old Noob]

Frank doing CLF:

https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/11/19/ZgzUoHQFdE20Kkbvvzkhjw2.gif

:D:D:D:D

Not that Frank couldn't use a little of his own medicine, this seems a bit random. Did you not like that legitmate, non-hostile discussion was occurring here?

[hskwarrior]

http://chatroulettegifs.com/fat_guy_dancing.gif

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs5/2351850_o.gif

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/253742_o.gif

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt8kzuDDq11qfqcmfo1_500.gif

mk PLAYING WITH LIGHT SABERS DOING HIS LONG FIST.....

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gJe9rSDXMcY/UFCIGLI1XII/AAAAAAAAC2U/mA-U9v8GqS8/s1600/fat-guy-lightsaber.gif

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqWzTtev3g7n44jYo9VW-Pe0sASNM9-xtb8nb6LgFqMb_oGJVFIvdCrzdw

[hskwarrior]

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/101783/101783,1323605213,11/stock-photo-man-showing-middle-finger-isolated-on-white-background-90922850.jpg

[hskwarrior]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzWgch3gCSo


http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/101783/101783,1323605213,11/stock-photo-man-showing-middle-finger-isolated-on-white-background-90922850.jpg

[MasterKiller]

I found this pic of Frank's girlfriend. Cute!

http://static.happyplace.com/assets/images/2012/08/501b87360dce9.jpeg

[GeneChing]

I can't un-see those images. **** you both. :mad:

[hskwarrior]

HE OR SHE LOOKS BETTER THAN YOUR GOYLE

OH YEAH..............

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/101783/101783,1323605213,11/stock-photo-man-showing-middle-finger-isolated-on-white-background-90922850.jpg

[bawang]

is that really you frank

[hskwarrior]

is that really you frank

yes it is.

[GeneChing]

Why do you persist when it's getting deleted? You've already sullied this thread with those images. Cease and desist.

[hskwarrior]

Why? Because i did.

Mk wants to play i can play. Erasing the thread is straight up chicken ****.

MK IS THE ONE WHO POSTED AN IMAGE OF SOME DUDE AND SAID ITS ME. HE DIDN'T NEED TO GO AND INSULT ME LIKE THAT. I'M OVER FED. I KNOW THIS. DOES HE NEED TO FUK WITH ME ABOUT IT? NO.

AND THE FIRST THREAD I PUT WAS JUST A VIDEO OF A FAT KID SLAMMING A SKINNY BULLY. AND YOU CHOSE TO DELETE IT. IF IT WASN'T DELETED I WOULDN'T HAVE POSTED ANYTHING ELSE. AND IF YOU WERE GOING TO DELETE SOMETHING YOU SHOULD AT LEAST INFORM SOMEONE WHY IS WAS DELETED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

THE FUKKIN DUDE PUT ME ON BLAST. I CAN'T DO THE SAME THING? YOU PROTECTING HIS ASS?

[themeecer]

You actually made a "Mk bullies hskwarrior and gets slammed" thread? That is just sad. Why in the world have any of us wasted time we can't get back, arguing with you? What a sad, sad existence.

[MasterKiller]

LOL. It's all in fun. I knew it would rile HSK a bit.

[hskwarrior]

You actually made a "Mk bullies hskwarrior and gets slammed" thread? That is just sad. Why in the world have any of us wasted time we can't get back, arguing with you? What a sad, sad existence.

WHO THE FUK IS TALKIN TO YOU? :confused: SUCKA


LOL. It's all in fun. I knew it would rile HSK a bit.

FUK U

[MasterKiller]

FUK U

http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2012/3/16/7e3b37e7-c2b0-4d66-8581-4fab31333619.jpg

[hskwarrior]

*** refer to photo at top of this page*****

[Kellen Bassette]

I'd be more upset that he implied you listen to hardcore than anything else....:eek:

I was also pretty stoked for Lucas and Warrior Man's challenge death match 'til that got shut down...I was all ready to buy my ticket to the top of the space needle, or some undisclosed European city...guess I'll just have to train tonight instead...:(

[MasterKiller]

We cool. Besides, Frank don't want none of this brotha.

http://i.imgur.com/HEjKn.jpg

[Kellen Bassette]

niceeeeeeee

[Lucas]

I'd be more upset that he implied you listen to hardcore than anything else....:eek:

I was also pretty stoked for Lucas and Warrior Man's challenge death match 'til that got shut down...I was all ready to buy my ticket to the top of the space needle, or some undisclosed European city...guess I'll just have to train tonight instead...:(

I know, right? I put a mark in my death match challenge record log under Warrior_Man's secion as; Challenge Complete: Result-Win

[hskwarrior]

regardless of what others may feel about the sf area.......
i'm not into dudes like some of ya'll here. i don't participate in sausage fests.

and ya're right. i don't want none. i'd shank the sh1t out of him tho :D

or he might end up like this....

http://shophairwear.com/buy/img/44-magnum-bullet-hole-assortment-temporary-tattoo-pack-6-bullet-hole-tattoos-per-pack_11719_500.jpg

[bawang]

i think u mad

[Kellen Bassette]

I know, right? I put a mark in my death match challenge record log under Warrior_Man's secion as; Challenge Complete: Result-Win

For sure...if he no showed you remain undefeated in death matches...which is a good thing. But since I have no reason to question Warrior Man's honor I can only assume he did the noble thing and fell on his own sword.

[hskwarrior]

i think u mad

yes i am M.A.D. (Master At Destruction). our secret name is (Mafia Against Dikheads)

:D:D:D

[Kellen Bassette]

regardless of what others may feel about the sf area.......
i'm not into dudes like some of ya'll here. i don't participate in sausage fests.

and ya're right. i don't want none. i'd shank the sh1t out of him tho :D

or he might end up like this....

http://shophairwear.com/buy/img/44-magnum-bullet-hole-assortment-temporary-tattoo-pack-6-bullet-hole-tattoos-per-pack_11719_500.jpg

SF does carry that stigma...here in rural America most deviancy is done in the barn.

[hskwarrior]

nice, bring that guy over to this thread and let the challenges fly.

waiting till its locked too..........

panties are bunched up round here.

[hskwarrior]

SF does carry that stigma...here in rural America most deviancy is done in the barn.

i don't know nothing about MK's world. i just think he's strange. i mean.....
S-t-r-a-n-g-e for real.:rolleyes:

[Kellen Bassette]

nice, bring that guy over to this thread and let the challenges fly.

waiting till its locked too..........

panties are bunched up round here.

We can't have this thread get locked! There would be nothing left to talk about around here...except Kung Fu...

[hskwarrior]

http://www.nabeepchen.com/images/lock-big.jpg

[Scott R. Brown]

Can't we all just get along......sniff sniff!!!:(

There are so many other people to hate.....

Like Klingons.....

and Cobra Kai....

abd Megatron.....

and those mean ghosts who pick on Casper.....

and Lucas......er I mean.....Starbucks.....

[GeneChing]

http://www.nabeepchen.com/images/lock-big.jpg
Don't start that again...:rolleyes:

At least wait until it's almost at 2K pages...which won't be very long at this rate.

[Kellen Bassette]

Don't start that again...:rolleyes:

At least wait until it's almost at 2K pages...which won't be very long at this rate.

The only thing this thread needs to hit 2k tonight is a video of Freddy and Sin The doing a Hung Sing 2 person form...

[OldandUsed]

Bans are always options.

[Scott R. Brown]

Bans are always options.

My sifu, called The Ancient One, taught us, "Once you are banned, there are NO options!":(

He was very wise!:cool:

[hskwarrior]

The only thing this thread needs to hit 2k tonight is a video of Freddy and Sin The doing a Hung Sing 2 person form...

where is your form videos?????:D

[hskwarrior]

http://www.nabeepchen.com/images/lock-big.jpg

[bawang]

frank, the goal of internet battle is to enrage your enemy without being enraged yourself. youre failing horribly against both shaolin do and masterkiller. grow a thicker face bro.

[hskwarrior]

frank, the goal of internet battle is to enrage your enemy without being enraged yourself. youre failing horribly against both shaolin do and masterkiller. grow a thicker face bro.

see what happens when i lose weight? i lose internet fights. i need to regain my weight to be tough

[hskwarrior]

and oh, never in my life even if i had one leg, one arm, one finger, one toe,one butt cheek and half a face would i ever lose or fail against Shaolin Do. never!!

[Scott R. Brown]

My sifu, called The Ancient One, once told us, "In life you can be smart, or you can be pleasant! I've been smart, but I recommend pleasant!"

He was very wise!:cool:

[MasterKiller]

i don't know nothing about MK's world. i just think he's strange. i mean.....
S-t-r-a-n-g-e for real.:rolleyes:

You just racist against us brothas.

[hskwarrior]

You just racist against us brothas.

yes, whatever you claim to be......I HATE YOU. From mars, i hate you. but check it, i'm an equal opportunity hater.

you are part of NO race if you aren't part of the HUMAN race. your ethnic background means nothing to me. don't choke.

admit it.....ur're really jake mace huh?

[Scott R. Brown]

My sifu, called The Ancient One, taught me, "HATE is just a Hat with an 'E' on the end. If you remove the 'E' all that remains is a hat!" Then he doffed his chapeau and walked away!

He was very wise!:cool:

[Kellen Bassette]

where is your form videos?????:D

Touche...I've actually been thinking of making some once I recover from this back injury...It just feels pointless when you find that one diamond of a form out of 100 crappy ones on Youtube and you see someone say, "he wasn't connecting the energy," or "his stance is too high, or low"...or w/e...and I'm like no way....that was a rocking form, but that's the net...

[Kellen Bassette]

My sifu, called The Ancient One, taught me, "HATE is just a Hat with an 'E' on the end. If you remove the 'E' all that remains is a hat!" Then he doffed his chapeau and walked away!

He was very wise!:cool:

I like your sifu :p

[Syn7]

I don't disagree with this at all and, as long as you don't demand courtesy, I can't find fault with your view that it has weakened us.

That being said, societal rules are what we agreed upon to keep us out of the state of nature and, if I am going to follow them, I expect others to do so as well. Personally, I'd be happy to go back to the state of nature; I'd do okay there. I've had to explain to exceedingly rude people a couple of times that these quaint little rules are the only things standing between me and all of their stuff, to include their physical well-being. I feel you on this.

But, if another person doesn't belong in an argument, you know you only fuel that participation by antagonizing that person. If you were truly that much more enlightened, you'd ignore it; not because its weak and PC but becuase you know its a waste of time. If wasting time is your goal, however, you're all good.

Well, to be completely honest, KC just wandered on to my radar at a time when I was bored. It's like hunting bear, but a nice lil deer walks thru the crosshairs, why not, right. I'm not trying to make any point or anything. Aside from the fact that his answers can be ridiculous and sadistically entertaining. All of this, including any talks on morals, altruism etc just happened organically. There is no overall point. I mean, there can be, but I couldn't really be bothered. I just throw **** out there and see what happens. I wasn't kidding when called it practice. If people get upset, that's on them.


Either that or one of my split personalities is having an identity crisis!:eek:

[Syn7]

I am sure classes/seminars with someone who specializes in knife fights would be useful. (Even though we are speaking about a very rare occurrence) I have not had that opportunity. I do not want to create some false bravado in my students that can get them seriously hurt or killed. Obviously a possession such as a wallet, phone, or vehicle isn't worth it .. a loved one is.

As for having my own weapons around, except at work I am normally always very close to a weapon. In my home it is mostly because I have had copperhead snakes inside and less about intruders.

JSE, I like the idea of tossing the wallet to the side or maybe even at them as you make your get away.

The dog brothers have an interesting approach to knife fighting. They emphasize realism.

You can buy knives that carry a charge and shock you when they make contact. Lets you know thru pain that you done ****ed up! I haven't tried one, I dunno how the feel in the hand. If they are bulky or what. Google should be able to find em tho.

[Syn7]

Touche...I've actually been thinking of making some once I recover from this back injury...It just feels pointless when you find that one diamond of a form out of 100 crappy ones on Youtube and you see someone say, "he wasn't connecting the energy," or "his stance is too high, or low"...or w/e...and I'm like no way....that was a rocking form, but that's the net...

I can understand wanting to be at your best when you put yourself out there like that, but in the end, haters gonna hate. Just how it is.

http://www.funtoxin.com/cosmos/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/17-661089296.jpg

[Shaolin Wookie]

This thread is waaaaaay off topic. I mean, are you guys for real? Are you for real interested in what within shaolin do is for real shaolin Kung fu?

[kwaichang]

Well so Syn 7 was just bored , but when you insult someone that is just plain rude. so I responded with a Psychological Synopsis based upon, what I observed as deviant behavior, and considering the responses I received back I was right, No one can win a philosophical argument , and business philosophy is just that a philosophy. So i agree with Old N this should be geared toward finding the Truth of SD not berating others. I would love to see exerpts from those books mentioned by Wook. Or who ever mentioned it. KC:)
PS: and contrary to popular belief I am not "dumb" I just read and study other things, that if I discussed them with most here would make you or some the dumb ones.

[Old Noob]

and oh, never in my life even if i had one leg, one arm, one finger, one toe,one butt cheek and half a face would i ever lose or fail against Shaolin Do. never!!

You're already losing. In fact, losing seems to be what you spend most of your time doing. Also, I like how you accuse everyone who annoys you Jake Mace.

You do seem to have a .jpg stash worthy or a strong interweb warrior. I'll give you that.

[hskwarrior]

You're already losing. In fact, losing seems to be what you spend most of your time doing. Also, I like how you accuse everyone who annoys you Jake Mace.

You do seem to have a .jpg stash worthy or a strong interweb warrior. I'll give you that.

You're really Jake Mace aren't you?

uh, old timer bumpkin..........there is nothing to lose. only you armchair and secret internet squirrels fight on the internet. too chicken of real deal confrontations. don't say anyone from Shaolin Do can fight because NO ONE and i mean NO ONE has proven that to be a contradiction.

YEE-HAW!!!!!!!

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ46CY_SU7b5EQNSNJiOzQORkvtiM4Be uJkM5YjsxuWphKcqQxyXk2ntAW1mg

http://www.forgingelitesarcasm.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/noob.jpg

[Scott R. Brown]

I like your sifu :p

He was very wise!:cool::);)

[wenshu]

This thread is waaaaaay off topic. I mean, are you guys for real? Are you for real interested in what within shaolin do is for real shaolin Kung fu?

It barely even qualifies as Gong Fu in the first place, let alone Shaolin.

[Old Noob]

You're really Jake Mace aren't you?

uh, old timer bumpkin..........there is nothing to lose. only you armchair and secret internet squirrels fight on the internet. too chicken of real deal confrontations. don't say anyone from Shaolin Do can fight because NO ONE and i mean NO ONE has proven that to be a contradiction.

YEE-HAW!!!!!!!

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ46CY_SU7b5EQNSNJiOzQORkvtiM4Be uJkM5YjsxuWphKcqQxyXk2ntAW1mg

http://www.forgingelitesarcasm.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/noob.jpg

Thank you for illustrating my point.

Yours,
Jake

[pazman]

This thread is waaaaaay off topic. I mean, are you guys for real? Are you for real interested in what within shaolin do is for real shaolin Kung fu?

This thread is in the wrong forum. There is nothing about Shaolin Do that is Shaolin.

[hskwarrior]

thank you for illustrating my point.

Yours,
jake

yee-haw!!!!!!!

[GeneChing]

This thread is waaaaaay off topic. I mean, are you guys for real? Are you for real interested in what within shaolin do is for real shaolin Kung fu? Wait, you're asking this now?


This thread is in the wrong forum. There is nothing about Shaolin Do that is Shaolin. Well, there is the name. That's as much of a connection as many schools have to Shaolin.

BTW, I mention this IS-Dfr thread in my Publisher's Corner in the new JAN+FEB 2013 issue (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=64884). It had just passed 1K pages when I wrote that, which was just prior to our submission deadline, about a month ago. Now the IS-Dfr has already added 130 more pages. At this rate, it'll be at 2K in about another half year. :o

[Orion Paximus]

whoever makes the 2000th post should get to replace you as EIC of the magazine. It's only fair.

[GeneChing]

Of course, as admin, it's easy enough for me to manipulate this thread to secure #2K, but frankly, I wouldn't wish this fate on any of you. :rolleyes:

[Orion Paximus]

clearly you have learned nothing from Warrior Man about honor (or honour). Meet me at the Spacenight and Midneedle

[GeneChing]

don't start that again. :rolleyes:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_me51mcgFpz1r7xz8io1_400.gif

[Orion Paximus]

so maybe my first serious response for this thread;
So if it looks as though Sin The' is teaching a form of Kung Tao, which is derived, most believe, from Silat, then is the fact that Silat traces its origins to Bodhidharma give SD a round-about claim to call itself Shaolin?

Just being Devil's Advocate here.

[Orion Paximus]

ugh watching Silat forms made me cringe.

[JSE]

This a silat school in my area. Check out the videos section. Any thoughts?

http://www.clearsilat.com/

[Orion Paximus]

I think any style that teaches you to stick your face out towards your opponent while simultaneously spreading your arms is not something I'd like to learn.

[Empty_Cup]

so maybe my first serious response for this thread;
So if it looks as though Sin The' is teaching a form of Kung Tao, which is derived, most believe, from Silat, then is the fact that Silat traces its origins to Bodhidharma give SD a round-about claim to call itself Shaolin?

Just being Devil's Advocate here.

I've read through all 1000+ pages of this thread and there has been no real evidence (at least posted on this thread) that Shaolin Do has any basis in Silat, Karate, or Kung Tao.

[Old Noob]

I've read through all 1000+ pages of this thread and there has been no real evidence (at least posted on this thread) that Shaolin Do has any basis in Silat, Karate, or Kung Tao.

I can't wholly agree with this. There isn't much direct evidence but there are certain things that suggest a strong possibility. Also, I think SD's movements are more closely comparable to Kun Tao/Silat than they are to the more traditional CMA (our sweeps in particular). A while back Mas Judt, who seemed to know what he was talking about, indicated that he had something definitive about SD's connection to Kun Tao/Silat. Unfortunately, he never got around to posting it here. Besides, this is, to some degree, a semantic debate since Kun Tao is a somewhat generic term for Indonesian martial arts with Chinese origin.

[Orion Paximus]

I feel I should point out that I have no dog in this fight, I was just curious.

[Kellen Bassette]

so maybe my first serious response for this thread;
So if it looks as though Sin The' is teaching a form of Kung Tao, which is derived, most believe, from Silat, then is the fact that Silat traces its origins to Bodhidharma give SD a round-about claim to call itself Shaolin?

Just being Devil's Advocate here.

Silat claims Bodhidharma too?? He was a busy dude...

[Syn7]

This thread is waaaaaay off topic. I mean, are you guys for real? Are you for real interested in what within shaolin do is for real shaolin Kung fu?

Lol. I think the answer should be rather obvious at this point. I won't speak for others, but NO, I don't care about SD or whether it is this or that. I will admit that at one point I had a very minor curiosity as to why this thread is so large. It took me ten seconds to see why and now I'm just here for entertainment values.

[Syn7]

Well so Syn 7 was just bored , but when you insult someone that is just plain rude. so I responded with a Psychological Synopsis based upon, what I observed as deviant behavior, and considering the responses I received back I was right, No one can win a philosophical argument , and business philosophy is just that a philosophy. So i agree with Old N this should be geared toward finding the Truth of SD not berating others. I would love to see exerpts from those books mentioned by Wook. Or who ever mentioned it. KC:)
PS: and contrary to popular belief I am not "dumb" I just read and study other things, that if I discussed them with most here would make you or some the dumb ones.

You came to me. Deal with it, squirt.

[kwaichang]

You have got to be kidding. Boy you really should get back on your MEDS. It will take care of that Delusional aspect of your Psychi. I have come to you for nothing , you are now on ignore Syn 7. deal with it. KC

[Punch.HeadButt]

This a silat school in my area. Check out the videos section. Any thoughts?

Every time I see a Ba Gua application that involves turning your back to the guy, I grimace. I do the same when I see an app that has you literally walking a circle around your opponent.

I'm no authority on the subject, but I'm also only KIND OF stupid.

[Empty_Cup]

I feel I should point out that I have no dog in this fight, I was just curious.

I understand, and my comment wasn't really directed to you. I used your question to address the larger issue...no harm intended.

For 1000+ pages there have been constant accusations that Shaolin Do is karate or tae kwon do or silat or kun tao...anything but CMA. The detractors don't support this with anything concrete...merely with vague and ambiguous critiques that normally have the word "flavor" or some other equally indefinite adjective.

From my experience, the physical movements of Shaolin Do are based on the intent of the application just as with any other martial art.

[kwaichang]

Good post Empty Cup, I agree with You. SD as with many CMA has different mechanics dependent upon the style and its origin in China. Many of the styles there probably like HUa Fist saw Hung Jia and said oh that isnt real chinese MA see how they hardly ever kick or how they move etc. So for some one to say SD is Karate shows an ignorance of that art Karate , Taekwon Do etc. That is like saying Shui Jao and Judo are none alike though they are from different areas. But they are throwing arts and contain many of the same mechanics. Bruce lee said a punch is a punch , a kick is a kick. KC

[JSE]

I think any style that teaches you to stick your face out towards your opponent while simultaneously spreading your arms is not something I'd like to learn.

I saw another video where the instructor was teaching to attack the opponents fist. Multiple hand,elbow, and knee strikes to the FIST! I'm no expert by any means and there might have been a logical reason for that, but I don't see it.
:confused:

[Scott R. Brown]

I saw another video where the instructor was teaching to attack the opponents fist. Multiple hand,elbow, and knee strikes to the FIST! I'm no expert by any means and there might have been a logical reason for that, but I don't see it.
:confused:

That one is easy, if you can attack the most difficult target, you can attack the easier targets!

[JSE]

Makes sense. I guess I should have specified this was a self defense class, not a training type class. So in a self defense situation, why that much effort and energy on a fist?

[tattooedmonk]

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=YUjFQC9akxQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DYUjFQC9akxQ
Ran into a former student today who told me about another former student who I trained back in the 90s .... It is what it is , judge for yourself. Good job Romar !:cool::eek::D;)

[Scott R. Brown]

don't start that again. :rolleyes:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_me51mcgFpz1r7xz8io1_400.gif

My sifu, called The Ancient One, taught us, "He who can be easily hypnotized, is already hypnotized!"

He was very wise!:cool:

[Syn7]

You have got to be kidding. Boy you really should get back on your MEDS. It will take care of that Delusional aspect of your Psychi. I have come to you for nothing , you are now on ignore Syn 7. deal with it. KC

Smartest things you've done so far. Took long enough.

[Judge Pen]

Wait, you're asking this now?

Well, there is the name. That's as much of a connection as many schools have to Shaolin.

BTW, I mention this IS-Dfr thread in my Publisher's Corner in the new JAN+FEB 2013 issue (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=64884). It had just passed 1K pages when I wrote that, which was just prior to our submission deadline, about a month ago. Now the IS-Dfr has already added 130 more pages. At this rate, it'll be at 2K in about another half year. :o

What's the old adage: there is no such thing as bad press?

[Judge Pen]

I can't wholly agree with this. There isn't much direct evidence but there are certain things that suggest a strong possibility. Also, I think SD's movements are more closely comparable to Kun Tao/Silat than they are to the more traditional CMA (our sweeps in particular). A while back Mas Judt, who seemed to know what he was talking about, indicated that he had something definitive about SD's connection to Kun Tao/Silat. Unfortunately, he never got around to posting it here. Besides, this is, to some degree, a semantic debate since Kun Tao is a somewhat generic term for Indonesian martial arts with Chinese origin.


For 1000+ pages there have been constant accusations that Shaolin Do is karate or tae kwon do or silat or kun tao...anything but CMA. The detractors don't support this with anything concrete...merely with vague and ambiguous critiques that normally have the word "flavor" or some other equally indefinite adjective.

From my experience, the physical movements of Shaolin Do are based on the intent of the application just as with any other martial art.

I like these two posts. SD is it's own animal. Whatever we call it, it becomes an semantics.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Kuntao or kungfu---doesn't seem like much of a difference as far as terminology goes. But when you look for specifics to say it's one or the other, or even more Indonesian than Chinese, you'd have to match it to other kung fu styles or other kuntao styles with specific teachers. That's a bit harder--but the techniques are pretty much standard from what I've seen.

SD is its own brand of kuntao/kung fu. Though I like to look for analogs to swing the pendulum in one direction, the truth is that we represent the only line of our art---part Sin The, part GM Ie, part Chung Yen. That's why most of us want more info on Chung Yen (we want to celebrate the art, rather than trying to dig our way out of avalanches of misinformation). We're not doing pure Shaolin--as GM Sin admitted plainly in his deposition. You're either proud of what you represent, or else you want to do what someone else is doing. I'm good enough at what I do to be proud of the ****ed thing, and I don't want more information saying that we're doing ancient Shaolin if that is not in fact the case.

The forms differ from other Chinese styles.

When SD sparring takes place, it looks like sanshou (fewer rules than most CMA schools) or (at worst) other CMA and TKD styles. This isn't SD's problem--it's the problem of all CMA (which everyone thinks looks like TKD or karate). Sparring isn't the problem, here. And my sparring doesn't look like TKD. It looks more like sanshou (lots of throws and takedowns), much mantis boxing in between. And when it hits the ground it looks like harimau or BJJ. I just call that fighting.

The main gripe people have is with forms and jing. And with good cause. Because many students (myself included) have to focus on learning forms, sometimes they don't take enough time to work on power generation for specific styles (although I do try by training drills for some styles, i.e. tiger, crane, mantis--I don't have time to train specific power generation for ALL styles I learn as well as I could if I did 1 style, but I try nonetheless). This is hte one thing that I found englightening by training in other schools. They have specific drills that they use to develop specific kinds of power. Hung Gar, I saw firsthand, has some good drills for tiger motions and crane motions---two separate kinds of power. SD has these motions in its forms, but many people don't develop them. I was inspired to separate those powers, myself, by developing drills (shortened portions of forms) to really work on power generation. Longfist had a different kind of rhythm to it. Tai Chi and Bagua also have different principles. But how often can you drill them when you have 20 pakua forms and 20 tai chi forms? That's why I only do the minimum internal (CMC Yang, Jiang Pakua, Hsing-I) that goes with external, and it's still probably too much.

More often than not, many SD guys use one style's power generation for other styles, filling in the gaps, as it were. This is where criticism of the art is at its highest.;) This doesn't make a given punch incorrect (because it's correct if it lands), but it does mean that different kinds of power generation are used. It might not be the correct jing for a given style according to tradition. And since SD has false histories for some traditions, this is where the criticism gets muddled.

Someone posted EM Leonard's Hsing-I. More than likely, he's using short forms power generation to complete Hsing-I movements. When people say he's doing the form wrong, they're wrong and right. He's got the form, and he even has power generation. It just isn't traditional Hsing-I power generation. And I'm wretched at Hsing-I myself. So I'm not criticizing.;)

As for those who wondered why you'd attack an opponent's hands, martial arts were not intended to be done empty handed--any style, in point of fact. Always best to take care of those pesky hands if you can. #2---hands are very weak and prone to injury. If someone grabs you, you can either (1) do a fancy chinna technique and possibly have it countered, or (2) break as many bones in that hand as you can while the hand is in range. Short form (double block down). Every SD practitioner knows it. Good for countering grabs and breaking thumbs. (and also a KAT application).

[Snipsky]

As for those who wondered why you'd attack an opponent's hands, martial arts were not intended to be done empty handed--any style, in point of fact.

The above is complete malarky. it just is. just saying. i doubt you really understand the kung fu. you sound like Shaolin Do Do.


And since SD has false histories for some traditions, this is where the criticism gets muddled.

SD has never taught anything from real kung fu. these books and video's have messed all of you up bad.


He's got the form, and he even has power generation. It just isn't traditional Hsing-I power generation. And I'm wretched at Hsing-I myself. So I'm not criticizing.


more shaolin do nonsense.


If someone grabs you, you can either (1) do a fancy chinna technique and possibly have it countered, or (2) break as many bones in that hand as you can while the hand is in range. Short form (double block down). Every SD practitioner knows it. Good for countering grabs and breaking thumbs. (and also a KAT application).

i love when someone tries to attack my hands. only the dumb dumbs attack someone's hands. only dumb dumbs assume someone will just leave their hand out there for you to attack it. i repeat.......shaolin dumb dumbs

[Shaolin Wookie]

You're right. You know it? You're just right. I guess I never really considered your argument.


Thank you for your insight.:)

[Shaolin Wookie]

I can't wholly agree with this. There isn't much direct evidence but there are certain things that suggest a strong possibility. Also, I think SD's movements are more closely comparable to Kun Tao/Silat than they are to the more traditional CMA (our sweeps in particular). A while back Mas Judt, who seemed to know what he was talking about, indicated that he had something definitive about SD's connection to Kun Tao/Silat. Unfortunately, he never got around to posting it here. Besides, this is, to some degree, a semantic debate since Kun Tao is a somewhat generic term for Indonesian martial arts with Chinese origin.

It's enough like silat and kuntao to be somewhat alike, and yet very very different. Many arts could claim the same.

Insofar as they are alike (and kuntao is soooo diverse), the semantic debate settles nothing. Youd have to list some people. Doesnt look like de thouars stuff.

[tattooedmonk]

The above is complete malarky. it just is. just saying. i doubt you really understand the kung fu. you sound like Shaolin Do Do.



SD has never taught anything from real kung fu. these books and video's have messed all of you up bad.



more shaolin do nonsense.



i love when someone tries to attack my hands. only the dumb dumbs attack someone's hands. only dumb dumbs assume someone will just leave their hand out there for you to attack it. i repeat.......shaolin dumb dumbsanything positive to contribute!?
What a ****ing troll and a turd burglar.

[hskwarrior]

anything positive to contribute!?
What a ****ing troll and a turd burglar.

u're sweeter than lemonade

[Shaolin Wookie]

There's a motion in one silat form I have that I swear is is just like Vicious Tiger in Pakua. You even dance in a circle. But the form is nothing like pakua. I think it goes back to what Empty Cup was saying. The martial intent for the motion is all that matters. The rest is just nomenclature and categorization.


SD is just plain difficult to categorize. It's a Chinese-Indies art based on Shaolin. Whatever else it is, anyone's guess.

[hskwarrior]

SD is just plain difficult to categorize. It's a Chinese-Indies art based on Shaolin. Whatever else it is, anyone's guess.

not that hard to categorize. sin the made alot of his stuff up. source: Sin The.
Category: made up sh1t.

[Shaolin Wookie]

From wikipedia:

Pencak Silat Mande Muda is a style of pencak silat created by Uyuh Suwanda in 1951 and continued by his son Herman. Mande Muda is a composite martial art from Bandung, West Java. Based primarily on cimande, it contains elements of 18 systems, principally cikalong, Syahbandar, harimau, pamonyet, Kari, Madi and Serak and was increased to 24 styles by Pak Herman up to his death.

I've done some Suwanda stuff (it's not like SD).

There's a lot of the same blending in SD, though. Insofar as this is analogous to what GM Sin has done, it's fine--but it should be advertised as such. Indonesian arts seem to be free-flowing in this manner. No doubt Chung Yen tried to keep Chinese culture alive for its members, but they had to compete in a Indonesian culture (and with various colonial overlords).

I don't doubt that there are Shaolin roots in the art--even if the art is not Shaolin kung fu as it is practiced in any other school. There are dialects still alive in America today that disappeared from the English/Scottish mainlands during their vowel and accent shifts. In fact, between 1620 and 1700, English immigrants to America commented on the fact that Americans were speaking "old tongues" of stodgy and stuffy old aristocrats from England's yesteryear. The southern accent (specifically the Virginian variety), for instance, has been traced back to Sussex County in England--and the accent is practically dead there now, as it has been for nearly 150 years or more. Something about cultural enclaves in foriegn lands--they maintain some traditions and practices stronger than "****genous" (viz. relatively ****genous) communities. A Chinese enclave of martial artists in Bandung likely preserved, adapted, responded, and innovated beyond their roots. When and how the art changed would be an interesting story to tell, but it's probably too late to tell it now. GM Ie has passed on, as have most of his training brothers.

If GM Sin has added to the art that we study, then it means the art that we study is alive and open to change. I just wish we knew more about the art's origins and what specifically GM Sin did in fact create from his own store of knowledge.
We'll probably never get that information, and many reasons why we can't get it.


It's Shaolin-Do or Shaolin-Tao (as we say down here). It's not something else, and its definately not silat or kuntao (of any system I know of...and I admit that I don't know of too many). Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.

[hskwarrior]

In miniature, this is hte story of all martial arts---adapt and respond.


intent is one thing. anyone with a brain should know about intention. in regards to SD it is the CONTENT that everyone is trying to make crystal clear here. the only connection to shaolin that SD has comes from puchased items. not by traditional transmission.

and that mess that you guys and jake calls Buddhist Fist is nothing other than a heaping mess of ka-ka. (which is clear because outside of sin the you have no kung fu uncles or even 2nd cousins.).

[Shaolin Wookie]

intent is one thing. anyone with a brain should know about intention. in regards to SD it is the CONTENT that everyone is trying to make crystal clear here.

And what is content except an order of categorization higher than actual martial intent in actual applications? Are you harping on the forms and the curriculum? We already agreed on that....LOL. Don't know J Mace, and don't know either form that you're complaining about. You're all bent out of shape about a form that very few people in the art actually practice or know.

I don't understand the ISDFR would-be trolls. You're not even good trolls.

[hskwarrior]

And what is content except an order of categorization higher than actual martial intent in actual applications? Are you harping on the forms and the curriculum? We already agreed on that....LOL. Don't know J Mace, and don't know either form that you're complaining about. You're all bent out of shape about a form that very few people in the art actually practice or know.

ask Sin The. I know nothing about content unless is Prono


I don't understand the ISDFR would-be trolls. You're not even good trolls.

that's the CLF way. when we troll we troll. my participation is over the humor of it all. nothing else other than the boosted 5 animal form.

you don't want me to troll. you realy don't.