I really don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
Cheers!
-FB
Systema against Wing Chun - No BS MMA and Martial Arts
Looks at thread date
Looks at MABS rules
Right back at you buddy.
[quote=It is Fake;2211216]Systema against Wing Chun - No BS MMA and Martial Arts
Looks at thread date
Looks at MABS rules
Right back at you buddy.[/quote]
You’re entitled to your opinion…er…buddy.
At class in Thornhill, we punch eachother, do pushups, kick eachother, wrestle, do “grab-escape” and other assorted drills. It’s all very simple, and very much hands on. In the 18 or so months that I’ve been training there, I haven’t seen or heard anything of the sort that the poster describes.
I won’t say that the poster is just making a sarcastic comment based on limited information, but it sure looks that way.
Cheers!
-FHB
He’s not your buddy, guy!
[quote=FB22;2211366]You’re entitled to your opinion…er…buddy.
At class in Thornhill, we punch eachother, do pushups, kick eachother, wrestle, do “grab-escape” and other assorted drills. It’s all very simple, and very much hands on. In the 18 or so months that I’ve been training there, I haven’t seen or heard anything of the sort that the poster describes.
I won’t say that the poster is just making a sarcastic comment based on limited information, but it sure looks that way.
Cheers!
-FHB[/quote]
Don is dead fucking serious in every thread all the time . He is even worse in person … all bristling with firepower and manliness .
No…really? I would have never guessed. 
facepalm
Doesn’t anyone watch South Park these days? You’re supposed to say “I’m not your guy, friend!”, and then I say “I’m not your friend, buddy!” and then you say “I’m not your buddy, guy!”, and so on…
Just forget it, you’ve ruined the mood now. I’m going to go masturbate or something.
Oh you think I’m talking about systema. No, your post is not a good enough reason to bump a 2 year old MABS thread.
That is a fact not, an opinion.
At class in Thornhill, we punch eachother, do pushups, kick eachother, wrestle, do “grab-escape” and other assorted drills. It’s all very simple, and very much hands on. In the 18 or so months that I’ve been training there, I haven’t seen or heard anything of the sort that the poster describes.
See this would have stayed in the 2 year old MABS thread.
Well, that’s germane :s
Do I detect a hint of schadenfreude? Is this a roman holiday?
I’m not your guy, friend!
I’m not your friend, buddy!!
Hee hee.
[quote=See this would have stayed in the 2 year old MABS thread.[/quote]
Well, that’s unfortunate. My bad.
Since I am on the subject of Systema and the critical debate thereof on this forum. I’d like to address another post, the age of which I confess I have not taken the time to discern. I expect that it is quite old as well. If that’s in violation of the rules, I ask you to forgive it in the spirit of free and open discourse, and I assure you that my discussion thereof is as free of spite as is humanly possible. I confess to having read the forum rules not in as great a depth as perhaps is warranted, but they seem quite complex, and I’m confident that the nuances of which are lost on me at this time.
The argument that I wish to address goes along the lines of Systema is excrement because it encompasses certain “no-touch” combat techniques. I propose that the poster has committed two fallacies in logic, namely arguement by ignorance and the fallacy of composition (I think).
Essentially arguing from ignorance is the argument that because someone cannot understand something, then therefore it cannot exist or be true. The poster errs in assuming that because he cannot understand or believe that “no-touch” combat techniques are real, they therefore cannot be real. In stating this, I’m in no way making the assertion that they are real, nor stating that I either can perform them or have any real understanding of them. I am merely pointing out the error in logic.
The second error in logic, beyond building on the shaky foundations of the first error, is that because Systema encompasses some “no-touch” techniques, then the entire practice is of no value. This, I believe, errs in that it assumes that the perceived value of one part of something (ie Systema) is the value of the the whole of that same thing. As I posted earlier, I’ve some experience with Systema and can confidently say that “no-touch” techniques are not the whole of the art. In fact, I’ve never been to a class in which they were practiced nor am I aware of any class or seminar where they are taught.
Cheers!
-FB
[quote=FB22;2212155]Well, that’s unfortunate. My bad.
Since I am on the subject of Systema and the critical debate thereof on this forum. I’d like to address another post, the age of which I confess I have not taken the time to discern. I expect that it is quite old as well. If that’s in violation of the rules, I ask you to forgive it in the spirit of free and open discourse, and I assure you that my discussion thereof is as free of spite as is humanly possible. I confess to having read the forum rules not in as great a depth as perhaps is warranted, but they seem quite complex, and I’m confident that the nuances of which are lost on me at this time.
The argument that I wish to address goes along the lines of Systema is excrement because it encompasses certain “no-touch” combat techniques. I propose that the poster has committed two fallacies in logic, namely arguement by ignorance and the fallacy of composition (I think).
Essentially arguing from ignorance is the argument that because someone cannot understand something, then therefore it cannot exist or be true. The poster errs in assuming that because he cannot understand or believe that “no-touch” combat techniques are real, they therefore cannot be real. In stating this, I’m in no way making the assertion that they are real, nor stating that I either can perform them or have any real understanding of them. I am merely pointing out the error in logic.
The second error in logic, beyond building on the shaky foundations of the first error, is that because Systema encompasses some “no-touch” techniques, then the entire practice is of no value. This, I believe, errs in that it assumes that the perceived value of one part of something (ie Systema) is the value of the the whole of that same thing. As I posted earlier, I’ve some experience with Systema and can confidently say that “no-touch” techniques are not the whole of the art. In fact, I’ve never been to a class in which they were practiced nor am I aware of any class or seminar where they are taught.
Cheers!
-FB[/quote]
Okay wth? You can address posts with valid information. Your second post would have been fine. You were addressing points as a participant in the class.
In other words this post:
At class in Thornhill, we punch eachother, do pushups, kick eachother, wrestle, do “grab-escape” and other assorted drills. It’s all very simple, and very much hands on. In the 18 or so months that I’ve been training there, I haven’t seen or heard anything of the sort that the poster describes.
I won’t say that the poster is just making a sarcastic comment based on limited information, but it sure looks that way.
Cheers!
-FHB
Is valid for a MABS thread because:
- You were in the class being critiqued.
- You are adding information to the thread.
- You are explaining drills and why posters are supposedly wrong.
Your first post was moved because it contains no new information.
I really don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
Cheers!
-FB
Do you understand why it was moved now?
As to the bold??? Wow.
[quote=It is Fake;2212167]Okay wth? You can address posts with valid information. Your second post would have been fine. You were addressing points as a participant in the class.
In other words this post:
Is valid for a MABS thread because:
- You were in the class being critiqued.
- You are adding information to the thread.
- You are explaining drills and why posters are supposedly wrong.
Your first post was moved because it contains no new information.
Do you understand why it was moved now?
As to the bold??? Wow.[/quote]
Yes, I understand why it was moved. I had thought that my opening remarks of the post to which you responded had acknowledged that. I was clearly wrong.
As for the bold font. That was unintentional. Looking at it from my browser, it doesn’t show as bold font at all. I’m not sure why it shows up as bold in yours.
Cheers!
-FB
You are kind of thick.
The bold was added by the person quoting your post to emphasize that section of what you said. The reason being that what you said deserves additional scrutiny.
No-touch techniques are not invalid because the observer is incapable of understanding them.
No-touch techniques are invalid because the proponents are incapable of demonstrating that they work. If you disagree, I’m always ready to be proven wrong–but the only way that will happen is that if someone demonstrates that no-touch techniques work in an objective fashion. Your demonstrator would have to apply the technique to opponents with no interest in “proving” the technique works and still have it work.
As far as I know, that has never happened. Ever.
[quote=Kintanon;2212963]You are kind of thick.
The bold was added by the person quoting your post to emphasize that section of what you said. The reason being that what you said deserves additional scrutiny.[/quote]
Alternatively, the message wasn’t clear.
I’d like to hear how it deserves additional scrutiny. You are making an un-supported assertion.
Furthermore, I’m offering a critique of the original proposition, not an assertion by itself.
Cheers!
-FB
[quote=Don Gwinn;2213001]No-touch techniques are not invalid because the observer is incapable of understanding them.
No-touch techniques are invalid because the proponents are incapable of demonstrating that they work. If you disagree, I’m always ready to be proven wrong–but the only way that will happen is that if someone demonstrates that no-touch techniques work in an objective fashion. Your demonstrator would have to apply the technique to opponents with no interest in “proving” the technique works and still have it work.
As far as I know, that has never happened. Ever.[/quote]
That is not my point. You are mis-representing my argument and attacking that mis-representation [straw-man].
I’m not representing “no-touch” techniques as valid or not-valid.
I am pointing out (in part) the argument from ignorance.
"the argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true. (“appeal to ignorance”) " (Wikipedia)
…i.e. that “no-touch” combat cannot be assumed to be untrue even if it has not been proven true.
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”
Cheers!
-FB