[QUOTE=FinalLegion;2620960]Seriously?! Someone is selling MA certifications on eBay?! I hate to sound naive but…isn’t that illegal in any kind of way? I’m not up on martial arts legality, but you can’t just hand out certifications…can you?[/QUOTE]
Ask the DNBK
DNBK and Semantic based arguments.
[QUOTE=BKR;2620965]Ask the DNBK[/QUOTE]
If I did, I’m sure they would say “No”. Why bring a legit society into this?
[QUOTE=FinalLegion;2620971]If I did, I’m sure they would say “No”. Why bring a legit society into this?[/QUOTE]
You’re amazing, no MA background on your part and now you google foo the DNBK and are all about them ?
You need to go train somewhere, seriously, fill in that “style” field and get busy.
No, there is fraud if it is misrepresented. Yet, that is an entirely different discussion. Basically if I sell you a Black Belt and a certificate it is not illegal. There is no formal regulation concerning rank. If you go out and use said certificate with zero knowledge I may be able to sue you for fraud which is illegal.
This was explained by one of our resident lawyers in a thread long ago.
[QUOTE=BKR;2620975]You’re amazing, no MA background on your part and now you google foo the DNBK and are all about them ?
You need to go train somewhere, seriously, fill in that “style” field and get busy.[/QUOTE]
If you go read through my profile, I wouldn’t say I have no MA background…it’s just extremely limited…and since I’m after an eclectic MA education, I’d always say I don’t have a primary style.
As far as DNBK goes, I’ve known about them, albeit in a tertiary fashion, for a while now, thank you very much. You don’t need to train in a dojo to understand the history of an organization…do I need to be a member of the United Nations staff in order to understand their history as an organization?
Yeah, you kind of do. I worked for 2 years with the TSA. TSA sucks as an organization, but I have heard enough to know 95% of the people don’t know WTF they are talking about when they complain.
[QUOTE=It is Fake;2620986]Yeah, you kind of do. I worked for 2 years with the TSA. TSA sucks as an organization, but I have heard enough to know 95% of the people don’t know WTF they are talking about when they complain.[/QUOTE]
True, but I’m not talking about whether a thing sucks or not. I’m only talking about it’s history and it’s own declaration of purpose. Certainly one would not need to work for the TSA in order to know how it came into existence and what it’s declared purpose is supposed to be; however, one would definitely need to have worked with them in order to give legitimacy to whether or not it’s a sucky place to work.
[QUOTE=FinalLegion;2620990]True, but I’m not talking about whether a thing sucks or not. I’m only talking about it’s history and it’s own declaration of purpose. Certainly one would not need to work for the TSA in order to know how it came into existence and what it’s declared purpose is supposed to be; however, one would definitely need to have worked with them in order to give legitimacy to whether or not it’s a sucky place to work.[/QUOTE]Really? Do you want go into semantics and rhetoric? That’s what you are doing right now and not very well.
If you want to key in on my use of “suck,” I will start by pointing out the fallacious basis of your original argument about the DNBK.
My point is that you need experience with something before deeming it good or bad.
[QUOTE=It is Fake;2620993]Really? Do you want go into semantics and rhetoric? That’s what you are doing right now and not very well.
If you want to key in on my use of “suck,” I will start by pointing out the fallacious basis of your original argument about the DNBK.
My point is that you need experience with something before deeming it good or bad.[/QUOTE]
There is no rhetorical or semantic argument going on here. I have yet to quantify anything as “good” or “bad”. I have only discussed the history of the DNBK, what they declare their purpose to be and the public perception of DNBK as I understand it. I have yet to make a declaration of DNBK’s goodness or badness.
If that’s you think I’m doing, let me clarify once again…I am only discussing the DNBK’s history and it’s own declared purpose, nothing more. A thing’s history and declared purpose is a matter of record, not a matter of experience. That’s like trying to say, for example, you can’t speak about the history of The Salvation Army without having been a member of it…and that’s ridiculous. If such was true, than no historian would ever be sought as a source of information.
Now, if you think I’ve made a fallacious statement somewhere, then we can talk about that.
Holly shit any more strawman arguments you want to raise?
Do I need to break it down for you or what? I said sort of to start this off. You are now speaking in absolutes. Historians? Hell any historian worth their salt will tell you that much of what they say is based on assumptions because they weren’t there and many things are educated guesses.
Since you are using rhetorical assertions to assert the validity of the DNBK and semantics to argue my use of “suck…”
[QUOTE=It is Fake;2621008]Holly shit any more strawman arguments you want to raise?
Do I need to break it down for you or what? I said sort of to start this off. You are now speaking in absolutes. Historians? Hell any historian worth their salt will tell you that much of what they say is based on assumptions because they weren’t there and many things are educated guesses.
Since you are using rhetorical assertions to assert the validity of the DNBK and semantics to argue my use of “suck…”[/QUOTE]
You want to tell me exactly what strawman arguments I’m guilty of? Can you please tell me exactly whose position I’m distorting and how I’m distorting it?
You’re the one that was trying to tell me I cannot call a thing good or bad without having any experience in it…which wasn’t anything I even discussed. All I’ve done is point that I am not talking about good or bad…I am talking about matters of history. You’re the one that misread my purpose and is looking to strawman my position into being something that it wasn’t.
And what absolutes did I bring up? You’re the one that brought up the absolutes of good/bad, not me. I’m speaking in terms of pure historicity, not in terms of subjective observation.
I dont know if you know this legion, but there is a nice little bit of dialogue about the DNBK going on in another thread right now that would help you understand why people are lol’ing.
Yes, you are absolutely correct.
[QUOTE=FinalLegion;2620971]If I did, I’m sure they would say “No”. Why bring a legit society into this?[/QUOTE]
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/legit?show=0&t=1319269219
legit
adjective, slang
permitted by law <the barbershop, which appears to be a legit operation, is actually a front for a local mobster>
Synonyms lawful, legit [slang], legitimate, licit
Related Words allowable, authorized, noncriminal, permissible; justifiable, warrantable; constitutional; de jure, regulation, statutory; good, innocent, just, proper, right
snicker
[QUOTE=It is Fake;2621013]Yes, you are absolutely correct.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/legit?show=0&t=1319269219
snicker[/QUOTE]
You do understand that the word ‘good’ in this instance is reflective of it’s definition as pertaining to it’s quality of legal legitimacy and not it’s definition of worth, right? I don’t need to explain that right?
[QUOTE=The Juggernoob;2621012]I dont know if you know this legion, but there is a nice little bit of dialogue about the DNBK going on in another thread right now that would help you understand why people are lol’ing.[/QUOTE]
If you mean the back and forth between me and BKR in another thread…yes, I am aware.
[QUOTE=FinalLegion;2621018]If you mean the back and forth between me and BKR in another thread…yes, I am aware.[/QUOTE]
So why are you bothering to argue with IIF. It cant be done man, just turn back!
[QUOTE=FinalLegion;2621016]You do understand that the word ‘good’ in this instance is reflective of it’s definition as pertaining to it’s quality of legal legitimacy and not it’s definition of worth, right? I don’t need to explain that right?[/QUOTE] You do understand that you brought up “legit” after you were discussing legal legitimacy of doling out false rank on Ebay right?
[QUOTE=The Juggernoob;2621019]So why are you bothering to argue with IIF. It cant be done man, just turn back![/QUOTE]
It’s probably because I’m argumentative person, which is a bit of a flaw, I know…but it’s also because I don’t like it when someone tries to me I’m arguing for the wrong thing…but not I’m not even arguing for the thing they think I am. If IIF would just get that he’s accusing me of arguing for something that I never touched on…there wouldn’t be an argument.
[QUOTE=FinalLegion;2621021]It’s probably because I’m argumentative person, which is a bit of a flaw, I know…but it’s also because I don’t like it when someone tries to me I’m arguing for the wrong thing…but not I’m not even arguing for the thing they think I am. If IIF would just get that he’s accusing me of arguing for something that I never touched on…there wouldn’t be an argument.[/QUOTE]
Look, arguing with IIF over stuff you dont really believe in is like giving 100% sparring with someone much better than you. You’ll gas out , get a beating and learn nothing from the experience.
[QUOTE=It is Fake;2621020]You do understand that you brought up “legit” after you were discussing legal legitimacy of doling out false rank on Ebay right?[/QUOTE]
Sure. Why not? Do we not use the term ‘legit’ to separate people and organizations in terms of those who are qualified and those that are not?
Your profile says you did Shaolin-do/CSC for 14 years. If someone was to say, “Hey, is IIF’s knowledge in that area accurate?” I’d say, “Yeah, after 14 years, I’d say he’s a pretty legit source.”
What, you never use slang?