# Subak's real rules with physical evidences



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

Subak's real rules with physical evidences. Subak means clap. I've seen some people claiming that a sport named clap must have (or is likely to have) only slaps or hits only side like clapping. This has no logic at all. Just because a sport is named clap doesn't mean such. As for the real rule with evidences, here are the following.

"Chosun Common Sense Q & A is Namseon Choi's 1937 newspaper column", "Subak & Subyuk were the same, a fight game which became a drinking game, children's game. The method is fist, grab moving front & back. Hand & fingers bend." It had Frontal slap + punch. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dp0fnPMWwAIfsuM.jpg

Older references with inherited knowledge are more credible than recent references with imagination or agenda (bending logic to meet goals). Also, what's important is whether the sources are academically reputable. All my sources are academically reputable; most of the references I show from them also happen to be old as a bonus quality. That record says Subak also uses punch, not just hand (bent into palm). It also says the fist moves front & back.

This Kokuryeo Subak picture with 2 mustache men look Subak & the left man looks frontal slapping (like Subyukta). & Subak punched. http://cafefiles.naver.net/data8/2005/5/21/49/%BC%F6%B9%DA%C8%F1_1.jpg

In 1964, the ethnologist Gimu Hong representing North Korean Science Center Anthropology & Ethnology Research Institute published this book, "there was a game called Subak. This knocks down opponent with punches. Subak was liked by warriors in that era." https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnvJGLBWwAAauDM.jpg

"Yugyuk showed Tagwon", "with 2 hands, hit his face, neck, back, chest, stomach", "really agile in punching such that no one could go near him", I thought that Yugyuk exhibition record also mentioned slapping forehead, but I can't find it. Tagwon punched. http://cafe384.daum.net/_c21_/bbs_search_read?grpid=12vrX&fldid=1LsP&datanum=196

Yongdangsopoom recorded Subak is also called Tagwon in 1621. It also recorded Subak had Subub, techniques. Korea also recorded Baekta became Gwonbub; Korea had Baekta besides "Subak". https://i.imgur.com/4dqubwA.png

By these physical evidences, I conclude that Korean Subak in Korea had straight frontal slap & punch.

Like Seomundang's photo 100 years ago & Stewart's words, Subyukta had frontal slap, which likely existed in the older version Subak before Subyukta. Subak's slap differs from a regular slap but is a hard swat (palm heel hitting, pressing). + Subak punched. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DA8o34KXkAA1YdF.jpg

Subyukta Clap Strike always slapped front like Stewart said. "The hands are then clapped, and opened, palms out, to strike those of the other player". She also recorded it was also called Ken, fist. Fist can be made with common sense. https://i.imgur.com/ygSH7dx.jpg


----------



## pdg (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Older references with inherited knowledge are more credible than recent references with imagination or agenda (bending logic to meet goals). Also, what's important is whether the sources are academically reputable. All my sources are academically reputable; most of the references I show from them also happen to be old as a bonus quality.



You said almost exactly the same thing in your taekwondo straw grabbing exercise in futility.

So, are these sources more or less reputable than the others?


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

All my sources are academically reputable, including Taekwondo's origin issue. Academia has a specific standard deciding what types of sources are reputable, what logic makes sense (or doesn't make sense, plain fallacies). Also, old references showing inherited knowledge is more credible than recent references with agenda, objectives to bend logic.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 6, 2019)

Academia uses critical thinking to assess veracity. That is not what you are doing. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## pdg (Jan 6, 2019)

But you've disregarded the "origin issue" with regard to taekwondo because, to you, it's tainted.

At first, you were absolutely adamant that taekwondo was entirely without karate influence and that everybody "must agree" with you.

You effectively discredited yourself there.

Now you state further absolutes and claim they are the most reputable - are you going to change your mind in 3 days (again)?


Oh, and older doesn't mean more credible in the slightest - it has been shown time and time again that people have always made whatever claims could best further their cause or ingratiate themselves with those in power.

In a time before mass availability of cross reference I can only imagine it was even more rife.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

Yeah, I don't see any logical fallacy applicable in these data or the natural conclusion from the given data. All my sources & references are reputable. My conclusions are natural.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Yeah, I don't see any logical fallacy applicable in these data or the natural conclusion from the given data. All my sources & references are reputable. My conclusions are natural.


Due diligence in critical thinking would require you to seek sources to disprove those you wish to believe. You have not done that, clearly. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

There aren't any contradicting data. These data are reputable sources, references. No fallacy was committed.

There never was any data that Subak hit side only nor used palm only. No proof. The same goes for all my topics. I have tons of reputable sources, references, data in all topics without any contradicting data so far. Even if there was a contradicting data, that wouldn't win against my data.


----------



## pdg (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Yeah, I don't see any logical fallacy applicable in these data or the natural conclusion from the given data. All my sources & references are reputable. My conclusions are natural.



Your conclusions are naturally biased by your desperation to have a pure source.

That does not make them reputable.


----------



## pdg (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> There aren't any contradicting data. These data are reputable sources, references. No fallacy was committed.



Prove their reputation.

People will write anything if they get something from it.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

My conclusions are natural, not biased neither for nor against myself. Being reputable newspaper, reputable history book, reputable archaeological drawing, reputable magazine, etc make such sources academically reputable.

All my sources are known to be reputable to scholars or the people experienced in such history fields.

I'm done in this website. I can't commit much to computer anyway due to my living condition. The point is, all my sources are reputable in any topic. Also, there's no contradicting proof, data, logic why something shouldn't be. Even if there was any such data, it wouldn't win against my data.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> All my sources are academically reputable, including Taekwondo's origin issue. Academia has a specific standard deciding what types of sources are reputable, what logic makes sense (or doesn't make sense, plain fallacies). Also, old references showing inherited knowledge is more credible than recent references with agenda, objectives to bend logic.


You refer to fallacies. It is a fallacy that older = more credible when it comes to references. The same criteria for credibility (support from unrelated sources, amount of bias, information available to author, etc.) apply regardless of the source's age. In many cases, older sources simply didn't have access to the information available today.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

Inherited knowledge is more credible than talking out of *** with imagination. Older references tend to be inherited knowledge while recent reference is imagination without studying the actual history. Also, my sources are not just old but academically reputable sources. It seems older era had much more data & information than today. Today's world doesn't really know these stuffs.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> There aren't any contradicting data. These data are reputable sources, references. No fallacy was committed.
> 
> There never was any data that Subak hit side only nor used palm only. No proof. The same goes for all my topics. I have tons of reputable sources, references, data in all topics without any contradicting data so far. Even if there was a contradicting data, that wouldn't win against my data.


This is the same level of claim you made regarding your sources for TKD's origin - that there wasn't any contradictory evidence. Then some folks showed you clear contradictory evidence.

Is it not possible the same would happen here, if you presented this to folks who make the claims you seem to be trying to counter?


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

It's different from TKD's origin case. In that case, I was focusing on Gwonbub link to Taekwondo, which did exist. There was no counter evidence against Gwonbub link to Taekwondo. The same goes here. There's no counter evidence against all these data, facts existing anyway just like Gwonbub existing within Taekwondo.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Inherited knowledge is more credible than talking out of *** with imagination. Older references tend to be inherited knowledge while recent reference is imagination without studying the actual history.



Nonsense. 


Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Inherited knowledge is more credible than talking out of *** with imagination. Older references tend to be inherited knowledge while recent reference is imagination without studying the actual history. Also, my sources are not just old but academically reputable sources. It seems older era had much more data & information than today. Today's world doesn't really know these stuffs.


"Inherited knowledge" seems to be a synonym for information handed down over time. We could spend all day listing the number of "facts" that were handed down among generations in almost any country, that we now know to be incorrect.

Older doesn't make it more reliable.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> It's different from TKD's origin case. In that case, I was focusing on Gwonbub link to Taekwondo, which did exist. There was no counter evidence against Gwonbub link to Taekwondo. The same goes here. There's no counter evidence against all these data, facts existing anyway just like Gwonbub existing within Taekwondo.


Yes, but there WAS evidence of a stronger link to Karate, which you claimed wasn't there. You ignored evidence that wasn't supportive of your claim.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

No. Inherited knowledge beats imagination with no logical necessity. That's a fact for history.

Inherited knowledge is better than imagination in history. We don't need god's power to know everything. Some things are good enough & certain enough by human world standard. It's standard in history.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 6, 2019)

The only "evidence" you've presented for Kwonbop being part of TKD is that the pictures in the Muyedobotongji look similar. Which is subjective. They don't, and reconstructions by actual martial artists made them more similar to Chuan Fa.

You've also alas failed to address the significant counterpoint I presented (i.e. Complete passages of techniques that are identical between Shotokan and Taekwondo).

You also ignored that the people who lived through it have stated on record that they trained Karate.

I don't disbelieve the link, but I don't believe it either. There is too little evidence to demonstrate objectively either way.

You are not assessing the evidence objectively. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> No. Inherited knowledge beats imagination with no logical necessity. That's a fact for history.


You're committing the fallacy of "false dichotomy". There are more options than "inherited or imagined". Knowledge based on good information, research, and counter-confirmation (review of contradictory sources) is better than information that lacks one or more of those. Age is not a characteristic that inherently adds or removes credibility.



> Inherited knowledge is better than imagination in history. We don't need god's power to know everything. Some things are good enough & certain enough by human world standard. It's standard in history.


A restatement of the above.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> No. Inherited knowledge beats imagination with no logical necessity. That's a fact for history.
> 
> Inherited knowledge is better than imagination in history. We don't need god's power to know everything. Some things are good enough & certain enough by human world standard. It's standard in history.



Writing off newer information as imagination is nonsense.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

No, Gwonbub pictures look like TKD as an objective fact. (& There were proofs that Taekwondo founders were linked to Gwonbub, specifically that name.) Not every comparison is subjective. Knife Hand stance, blocking kick with forearm, Taekwondo rotation punch, front kick all look very Taekwondo like some other people admitted.

There's a difference between error in inference & error in data. Taekwondo indeed had connection to Gwonbub in history. There was no error in data there. The only issue was that Taekwondo having link to Gwonbub doesn't necessarily mean not having link to Karate. It was an inference error. No one disproved Taekwondo not including Gwonbub.

All my sources & references are reputable in all topics. I just need scholars & objective people to see the truth for themselves then side with the truth. I don't have to deal with quibbling beyond reasonable doubts.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

If newer references in history is not an imagination, there must have been someone who passed it on before that generation. If so, there should be an older reference.

Also, my references being old is just a bonus quality. All my sources are academically reputable types of data, proof. That's the important part. Some sports making up stories with imagination on Subak, Breaking, Korean Fight Games (like Nalparam, Yetbub, Sibak, Pyunssaum) is not a reputable source nor reference.

I'm not committing any fallacy. What recent references do you have against my facts of any topic of history? If you have such references, is that source reputable for such history field? Is that reference made up with imagination (no logical necessity) or genuinely historic?


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> No, Gwonbub pictures look like TKD as an objective fact. Not every comparison is subjective. Knife Hand stance, blocking kick with forearm, Taekwondo rotation punch, front kick all look very Taekwondo like some other people admitted.



They look no more like Taekwondo than they look like Karate or (especially, almost identical to) Chuan Fa. There is nothing uniquely Taekwondo about them. I challenged you on that point but you ignored it because it did not support your agenda. 


Steven Lee said:


> There's a difference between error in inference & error in data. Taekwondo indeed had connection to Gwonbub in history. There was no error in data there. The only issue was that Taekwondo having link to Gwonbub doesn't necessarily mean not having link to Karate. It was an inference error. No one disproved Taekwondo not including Gwonbub.



No one proved it either. See above. 


Steven Lee said:


> All my sources & references are reputable in all topics. I just need scholars & objective people to see the truth for themselves then side with the truth. I don't have to deal with quibbling beyond reasonable doubts.



Then present your case like a scholar; argue with yourself and present a conclusion based on both pro and con evidence. Right now, you're not coming over as a scholar, and you are not going to be able to convince anyone who is a scholar because you are presenting an extremely one-sided case. No wonder you feel like it is you against the world.



Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

Yeah, I mentioned how those 300 years old Gwonbub pictures do look like Karate from 1922. I mentioned Karate being fishy aside from Taekwondo being a mix of Gwonbub gym & Karate gyms (having Gwonbub link doesn't mean not having Karate link).

You are quibbling. All those references & sources are reputable. The inference is natural. The conclusions are correct. There isn't any logical necessities nor reputable reference to deny my proofs in any topic of history I showed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> No, Gwonbub pictures look like TKD as an objective fact.


Actually, what something looks like is pretty subjective.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

No, not every comparison is subjective. Looks obvious beyond reasonable doubts, like many people admitted. You are quibbling. I hope other people, scholars, objective people read all my history facts then side with true historical facts. I have perfect data, references without any logical necessity nor reputable reference to deny any such proofs.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> If newer references in history is not an imagination, there must have been someone who passed it on before that generation. If so, there should be an older reference.
> 
> Also, my references being old is just a bonus quality. All my sources are academically reputable types of data, proof. That's the important part. Some sports making up stories with imagination on Subak, Breaking, Korean Fight Games (like Nalparam, Yetbub, Sibak, Pyunssaum) is not a reputable source nor reference.
> 
> I'm not committing any fallacy. What recent references do you have against my facts of any topic of history? If you have such references, is that source reputable for such history field? Is that reference made up with imagination (no logical necessity) or genuinely historic?


I have no need to refute anything. I'm just pointing out where your logic is weak, to help you make and more defensible statements. When your data is clear and defensible, I get to learn something. When it is unclear, shows confirmation bias, and overstates the impact of sources provided, there's not enough yet to learn from.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

No, there is nothing wrong with my data (you don't have any reputable reference nor logical necessity to disprove any of my history facts, data, proofs); there is nothing wrong with the inference naturally concluding based on the data. You are just trying to apply fallacies when such are not applicable by the definition of such fallacies. My writing is solid enough. My presentation of historical facts, proofs doesn't have to get much stronger. Strong enough already.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Yeah, I mentioned how those 300 years old Gwonbub pictures do look like Karate from 1922. I mentioned Karate being fishy aside from Taekwondo being a mix of Gwonbub gym & Karate gyms (having Gwonbub link doesn't mean not having Karate link).
> 
> You are quibbling. All those references & sources are reputable. The inference is natural. The conclusions are correct. There isn't any logical necessities nor reputable reference to deny my proofs in any topic of history I showed.


Then your conclusion is not credible or robust because it is based on subjectivity only. That's a pretty big quibble. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> No, not every comparison is subjective. Looks obvious beyond reasonable doubts, like many people admitted. You are quibbling. I hope other people, scholars, objective people read all my history facts then side with true historical facts. I have perfect data, references without any logical necessity nor reputable reference to deny any such proofs.


Yet, someone else said they don't look much alike.

And, no, your data are not perfect. Data never are. Understanding the flaws in your own data is an important step in determining if it is strong enough for the claim you are making.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> No, not every comparison is subjective. Looks obvious beyond reasonable doubts, like many people admitted. You are quibbling. I hope other people, scholars, objective people read all my history facts then side with true historical facts. I have perfect data, references without any logical necessity nor reputable reference to deny any such proofs.


I own the Muyedobotongji and I am a Taekwondo Sabeom. The pictures do not look anything like Taekwondo to me. That's a pretty big quibble too. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

No, there's no subjectivity beyond reasonable doubts here. You are just not objective. Don't need your kind of people. Just need scholars & objective people to agree without the reasonable doubts, not beyond it.

To prove facts, we don't need god's power nor god's standard. We prove historical facts based on reasonable efforts & reasonable data. That's perfect enough for human world standard certainty.

If rotation Taekwondo punch, knife hand stance, blocking kick with forearm, front kick don't look like Taekwondo & Karate to you, you are quibbling beyond reasonable doubts. Just need others to see that. Don't need you to see it. Also, you are committing red herring fallacy. Tainting other topics with Gwonbub-Taekwondo-Karate link topic to pretend as if you can deny & disprove any of my proofs in these topics.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> No, there's no subjectivity beyond reasonable doubts here. You are just not objective. Don't need your kind of people. Just need scholars & objective people to agree without the reasonable doubts, not beyond it.
> 
> To prove facts, we don't need god's power nor god's standard. We prove historical facts based on reasonable efforts & reasonable data. That's perfect enough for human world standard certainty.
> 
> If rotation Taekwondo punch, knife hand stance, blocking kick with forearm, front kick don't look like Taekwondo & Karate to you, you are quibbling beyond reasonable doubts. Just need others to see that. Don't need you to see it. Also, you are committing red herring fallacy. Tainting other topics with Gwonbub-Taekwondo-Karate link topic to pretend as if you can deny & disprove any of my proofs in these topics.


Ok, you don't need me. Bye.

Enjoy your lack of credibility. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Inherited knowledge is more credible than talking out of *** with imagination. Older references tend to be inherited knowledge while recent reference is imagination without studying the actual history. Also, my sources are not just old but academically reputable sources. It seems older era had much more data & information than today. Today's world doesn't really know these stuffs.


Is there an echo in here?


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

My sources & references are completely credible. Quibbling doesn't change my credibility. It just gives you something to talk about, pretending as if it does anything significant.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> My sources & references are completely credible. Quibbling doesn't change my credibility. It just gives you something to talk about, pretending as if it does anything significant.


Oh so your sources are above reproach? Let's assume for the sake of this post that thay are.

Even then, you are failing to present a convincing argument. I'd like to believe it. I love Korea, I love Taekwondo. I'm invested heavily in Korean history and culture. If you can't convince me, you can't convince anyone.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> You are just not objective. Don't need your kind of people.


If this is your reaction when someone challenges your approach, you aren't secure in your own research. To be objective, we all need people who challenge our position. You don't value that challenge, so will believe your position entirely correct.

I'm afraid I can't be much more help to you, in that case.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 6, 2019)

By the way, I was using your TKD - Kwonbop arguments to demonstrate the flaws in your research and presentation approach. Those same flaws are present in this thread. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 6, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> If this is your reaction when someone challenges your approach, you aren't secure in your own research. To be objective, we all need people who challenge our position. You don't value that challenge, so will believe your position entirely correct.
> 
> I'm afraid I can't be much more help to you, in that case.


True dat

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

Like I said, I don't need to deal with quibbles. My proofs & the inference just have to look smooth to objective people & scholars. I sense bias & agenda, likely for your satisfactions & the reasons tormenting my life.

Like I said, when you push beyond reasonable doubts, I don't have to deal with it. It's just a quibble. All my proofs are impeccable whether Subak's rules, Breaking's origin (power circus, not martial art), Kyuksul's origin, whatever. There are no proofs nor logical necessity (that something has to be that way) to disprove my proofs. Hence, the natural conclusion is inferred, which is plain reading out my perfect reputable references.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

In TKD case, my focus was that TKD was linked with Gwonbub. This data, proof were true. It was not disproven. The issue was that TKD having link with Gwonbub doesn't mean not having link with Karate. This was proven by further evidences provided on earlier Karate gyms in South Korea. The issue was with inference, not with proof. And there is nothing wrong with neither the proofs (no contradiction by other proofs nor logic) nor the inference. (Subak having frontal straight slap & punch doesn't mean what? No contradiction in Subak, Breaking's circus origin, Gyuksul or whatever historical topic I show.)


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 6, 2019)

Just curious....where in Korea are you from?


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> In TKD case, my focus was that TKD was linked with Gwonbub. This data, proof were true. It was not disproven. The issue was that TKD having link with Gwonbub doesn't mean not having link with Karate. This was proven by further evidences provided on earlier Karate gyms in South Korea. The issue was with inference, not with proof. And there is nothing wrong with neither the proofs (no contradiction by other proofs nor logic) nor the inference. (Subak having frontal straight slap & punch doesn't mean what? No contradiction in Subak, Breaking's circus origin, Gyuksul or whatever historical topic I show.)


Saying some pictures look a bit like something is not proof. Not by a long chalk. I also showed you the reconstructed Kwon Bop video from Muyedobotongji, which is identical to Chuan Fa. Not Taekwondo.

I've even learned that Kwonbop routine, which even as a TKD sabeom was very difficult because the techniques bear so little resemblance to those of TKD.

If Kwonbop had influence on Taekwondo, that influence was eclipsed by the much greater influence of Shotokan.

This combined with testimony from those living individuals who were there at the time, casts a more than reasonable doubt on the assertion that Kwonbop and TKD are related at all.

You basically have your ears plugged and are going lalalala right now. And you want to call it quibbling so you don't have to do any more work to flesh out your weak research. 



Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Subak means clap



In the Uk 'clap' is a sexually transmitted disease. 'Claptrap' however means a right load of old rubbish. Take your pick.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Like I said, I don't need to deal with quibbles. My proofs & the inference just have to look smooth to objective people & scholars. I sense bias & agenda, likely for your satisfactions & the reasons tormenting my life.
> 
> Like I said, when you push beyond reasonable doubts, I don't have to deal with it. It's just a quibble. All my proofs are impeccable whether Subak's rules, Breaking's origin (power circus, not martial art), Kyuksul's origin, whatever. There are no proofs nor logical necessity (that something has to be that way) to disprove my proofs. Hence, the natural conclusion is inferred, which is plain reading out my perfect reputable references.


If you sense bias, you've introduced it where none exists. Most of us have probably never heard of Subak before this. I know I hadn't, and entered the thread out of curiosity to see what it even was.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> In the Uk 'clap' is a sexually transmitted disease. 'Claptrap' however means a right load of old rubbish. Take your pick.


It's the same in the US. If I ignore all non-US sources, I can probably find evidence that we originated those terms, and you guys learned most of the language from us.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 6, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> It's the same in the US. If I ignore all non-US sources, I can probably find evidence that we originated those terms, and you guys learned most of the language from us.



A Family secret of ours is that my ancestors invented the first martial arts known to humans....it originated as a game of slapping hands....as this cave painting shows....










Later it would be brought to the New world and with the invention of the revolver my ancestors would evolve it into......






And a more advanced method


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 6, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> It's the same in the US. If I ignore all non-US sources, I can probably find evidence that we originated those terms, and you guys learned most of the language from us.


That's because we invented English... USA, USA, USA


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> That's because we invented English... USA, USA, USA


Yeah. And they named that island after our language, out of respect.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> My proofs & the inference just have to look smooth to objective people & scholars



Disregarding the Americans who think they invented English (as if) this sentence is extremely iffy. It does nothing to reassure anyone that you know what you are talking about, do you know what an 'inference' is?  Proof has to look more than 'smooth' to people, it has to, you know, look truthful. I could tell you a lot of very 'smooth' lies wrapped in beautiful, elegant English and you wouldn't know they weren't true. You are giving us your opinions masquerading as legitimate truths.
Make a statement then back it up with citations we can check.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

Somehow, my links are not working. When I click on them, they add a bunch of letters after the file extension.

http://cafefiles.naver.net/data8/2005/5/21/49/%BC%F6%B9%DA%C8%F1_1.jpg

This picture's left guy looks like frontal slap. (The arm is fully extended. It's a frontal strike, either with palm slap or with Knife Hand. Frontal Knife Hand strike or a frontal slap. And it looks more like a frontal slap.) Also, Subak had punch like many reputable sources I quoted. Also, Breaking was self-created as a circus with trial & error (& wrestling's power motion knowhow, how to put in body momentum hard, how to swing arm hard).

Pictures are a legitimate proof. In specific sports, there are few motions & moves that can look like certain pictures. If you rule out the motions not in the sports, the pictures look like specific motions like Subak's frontal slap or Gwonbub's pictures or Kyuksul pictures.

In Gwonbub's case, it was not only the similarities in pictures to Taekwondo but also the identical name that led me to investigate Gwonbub's connection to Taekwondo.

All my proofs & inferences are smooth enough & impeccable. When a claim is supported by evidences, if there is no logical necessity or proof against it, it is good enough & smooth enough. You guys are just quibbling.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

This was what was posted in the thread. The links are not working for some reason at the post 1. Have to manually copy the address and enter into the url bar.

I just hope I could reach many scholars & objective people with my proofs & conclusions inferred naturally & smoothly from the given data. I'm pretty much just reading out loud the writings & pictures. And yes, pictures are a legitimate proof what scenes, motions, techniques existed back then. Also proof enough to connect the dots & connect sports, especially if the name is identical.


----------



## pdg (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Pictures are a legitimate proof.



Sorry, that's rubbish.

I can show you pictures that, by your logic, show conclusively that baseball was a direct descendant of javelin.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> This was what was posted in the thread. The links are not working for some reason at the post 1. Have to manually copy the address and enter into the url bar.
> 
> I just hope I could reach many scholars & objective people with my proofs & conclusions inferred naturally & smoothly from the given data. I'm pretty much just reading out loud the writings & pictures. And yes, pictures are a legitimate proof what scenes, motions, techniques existed back then. Also proof enough to connect the dots & connect sports, especially if the name is identical.


Lalalalalalala

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

Pictures are a legitimate proof what scene, motions, techniques existed in what era. Pictures are a legitimate proof which sport looks similar to what other sport, especially if the name of the sport is the same. Subak's ancient pictures prove what motions, techniques ancient Subak had. Muyedobotongji Gwonbub pictures prove that Taekwondo's Gwonbub part & Gyuksul look similar to Muyedobotongji textbook's Gwonbub. Comparison is easy especially if the motions are unique, it's easy to make connections. Pictures are used as proofs commonly in history & archaeology just as much as writings. That's a fact. Including caveman drawings. Using pictures as a proof is common in history & archaeology. Also, I have many proofs in both writings & pictures in many topics.

I have many writings for proofs in many topics. I also have many pictures for proofs in many topics. Pictures are commonly used as proofs in academia including history. There are a limited number of sports in a specific region; each sport has a limited number of motions; among the motions available, few motions can look like certain pictures. Process of elimination. Pictures are a proof cause the artist tries to imprint the real life scene into picture. Aside from that obvious logic, it's a fact that pictures are approved by Academia as proof.

I'm just hoping I could connect with many scholars & objective people. I'm presenting proofs & conclusions in the standard academic ways. Don't need to deal with quibbles & moving the goal post fallacy.


----------



## pdg (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Don't need to deal with quibbles



Actually, that is precisely what you need to deal with, especially from scholars with a conflicting viewpoint.

As for moving goalposts - the only person I've seen that can be considered guilty of that is you.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

No, I only need to deal with counter evidence or logical necessity. Anything else doesn't do anything. If there is nothing else, my data, proofs, conclusions, inferences are perfect. Either there is counter logic & counter evidence, or there isn't, in which case my conclusions are the facts. I don't have to deal with quibbles that are neither counter evidence provided nor counter logic (logical necessity why something is impossible) presented.

Reputable evidences say Subak had punch, so Subak had punch. Reputable picture says Subak had frontal slap (& also frontal Knife Hand strike for some pictures), so Subak had frontal slap. Reputable evidences say Subyuk had frontal slap, so it adds to Subak's frontal slap possibility. Reputable evidences say that Breaking is power circus, so Breaking isn't from martial art. Reputable pictures of the same name (Gwonbub) looks similar to many sports today, so there's a connection when that specific name was mentioned in history of Taekwondo. Also, Kyuksul looks similar to Korean Gwonbub. I have reputable evidences in many topics; if there is no counter evidence nor counter logic, my conclusions are automatically the facts.

Moving the goal post fallacy means "you have to prove this much to qualify as a proof". Like saying ancient or medieval reputable pictures can't be a proof. Like claiming I have to deal with your quibbles that are neither counter evidence nor counter logic. You people are the one moving the goal post fallacy. I'm providing all evidences to the standard level of history & archaeology.


----------



## pdg (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> No, I only need to deal with counter evidence or logical necessity. Anything else doesn't do anything. If there is nothing else, my data, proofs, conclusions, inferences are perfect. Either there is counter logic & counter evidence, or there isn't, in which case my conclusions are the facts. I don't have to deal with quibbles that are neither counter evidence provided nor counter logic (logical necessity why something is impossible) presented.



That is in no way the criteria to define 'perfect', or how to identify 'fact'.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

Crying & demanding "perfect" proof or whining over the perception of "fact" is a clear sign of moving the goal post fallacy. All my proofs & conclusions (inferred directly from the evidences) are perfect enough, smooth enough, fact enough by the human world standard the same level as all historical facts in the world proven with reputable pictures & writings. For example, George Washington's picture proves what clothes he had. Historical writings that he was the first president of America proves the fact that he was the first president. That's 100% human world certainty. Don't have to be sure more than that.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Crying & demanding "perfect" proof or whining over the perception of "fact" is a clear sign of moving the goal post fallacy. All my proofs & conclusions (inferred directly from the evidences) are perfect enough, smooth enough, fact enough by the human world standard the same level as all historical facts in the world proven with reputable pictures & writings.


You are ignoring counter evidence. That's a weakness. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## pdg (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Crying & demanding "perfect" proof or whining over the perception of "fact" is a clear sign of moving the goal post fallacy. All my proofs & conclusions (inferred directly from the evidences) are perfect enough, smooth enough, fact enough by the human world standard the same level as all historical facts in the world proven with reputable pictures & writings. For example, George Washington's picture proves what clothes he had. Historical writings that he was the first president of America proves the fact that he was the first president. That's 100% human world certainty. Don't have to be sure more than that.



I'm not crying.

I'm not demanding perfect proof.

I'm not whining over perception of fact.


You stated (and restated) that your evidence was perfect, and that your interpretation represented fact.

The onus is on you to prove it.


As for moving goalposts - you are now saying "perfect enough" and "fact enough".

There is no such thing as "perfect enough" nor "fact enough". The terms are absolutes - it's either perfect or it isn't. It's either fact or it isn't.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

No one provided any counter evidence contradicting my Gyuksul proofs, Subak rule proofs, Breaking's origin proofs in any of those 3 threads. Do provide some reference, then we will examine whether the source is reputable & whether the reference is not made up with imagination. (Where did you hear that? That's a question to be asked.)


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

Saying perfect enough, fact enough, these are figure of speeches. Also, you were claiming there's no way to identify fact. So I was teaching you that Academia's facts don't have to be the perfect God's truth. It just has to be fact enough, perfect enough in academic standards.

The level of researches I do, the way I present proofs & inferred conclusions, the way my opponent is supposed to present counter evidences, these are all standard academic system. All historians build up historical facts using the same way I do, including the use of historic pictures.


----------



## pdg (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> George Washington's picture proves what clothes he had.



It proves what clothes he was wearing at the time of the picture.

It doesn't prove that those were his only clothes, whether he wore that style of clothing every day or whether he borrowed those clothes for the purposes of the picture.

As for pictures that predate photography - it's very well known that artists didn't always draw or paint (or sculpt or carve) exactly what was in front of them.

Creating that sort of work takes time, so you do a quick sketch, make notes and fill in details yourself.

And oftentimes, the artist would simply draw what he was told to.


Also, which president came first is recent enough and recorded in enough sources to be verified many times over.

A single document (that for all you know may well have been written to order) is not in itself evidence of anything other than the fact it was written.


----------



## pdg (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Saying perfect enough, fact enough, these are figure of speeches. Also, you were claiming there's no way to identify fact. So I was teaching you that Academia's facts don't have to be the perfect God's truth. It just has to be fact enough, perfect enough in academic standards.



Stop keeping on about God - the concept offends me.

And your presentation of 'fact' does not follow academic protocol.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

The point stands. (Yeah, if George Washington wants to prove he had which other clothes, he has to show it.) If you want to claim something existed, you are the one who has to prove it. As for me, I proved Subak had frontal straight slap, frontal Knife Hand strike (there are many Subak pictures), punch with Subak pictures & writings from reputable sources. I also proved how Gyuksul comes from Subak & Gwonbub. I also proved how Japanese Karate Breaking/Tameshiwari has Korean origin. They learned the striking technique & the game concept from Korea.

Yeah, my presentation of conclusion follows academic system. I showed reputable proofs from reputable sources. My conclusion inferred directly from the reputable proofs including historic pictures just like historians do. And so far, there's no counter evidence provided against any of my 3 threads.


----------



## pdg (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Yeah, my presentation of conclusion follows academic system. I showed reputable proofs from reputable sources. My conclusion inferred directly from the reputable proofs including historic pictures just like historians do. And so far, there's no counter evidence provided against any of my 3 threads.



No, your presentation was actually "look at me being right, agree right now".

That's not academic protocol, that's narcissism.

You have no basis to claim that your sources are reputable.

A few have disagreed with your conclusions and have cited the reasons for disagreement. Your response was to accuse them (and their sources) of lying. That's not how historians conduct themselves.


Have you, in any way or in any place, ever had anyone specifically agree with your findings?


----------



## Martial D (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> The point stands. (Yeah, if George Washington wants to prove he had which other clothes, he has to show it.) If you want to claim something existed, you are the one who has to prove it. As for me, I proved Subak had frontal straight slap, frontal Knife Hand strike (there are many Subak pictures), punch with Subak pictures & writings from reputable sources. I also proved how Gyuksul comes from Subak & Gwonbub. I also proved how Japanese Karate Breaking/Tameshiwari has Korean origin. They learned the striking technique & the game concept from Korea.
> 
> Yeah, my presentation of conclusion follows academic system. I showed reputable proofs from reputable sources. My conclusion inferred directly from the reputable proofs including historic pictures just like historians do. And so far, there's no counter evidence provided against any of my 3 threads.


It's been a minute since we had anyone here as entertaining as you. Keep up the good work, and do not let insignificant things like facts or evidence slow you down good sir!


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

Like I said, you are quibbling. I don't need to deal with quibbles. I showed reputable proofs; I showed conclusion. My thread post 1 wasn't even that long. Showing proofs & conclusion are a standard academic system. Smooth enough, perfect enough, fact enough when there is no counter evidence nor logical necessities against it.

My sources are reputable newspapers, reputable archaeological drawings, reputable history books, etc. These are all reputable types of sources approved by academia commonly. Also, all the sources I have shown are known to be decent & respectable to scholars & the people experienced in such history fields. Now you are quibbling over "prove your sources are reputable". They are reputable newspapers, history books, ancient drawings, medieval drawings. Not tabloid stuff. Real respectable stuffs. "Pictures cannot be used as a proof" doesn't mean ****. Pictures are commonly used as proofs in history. Everything I do is done the same way in history, the standard way.

Incredulity fallacy. Just because you pretend you don't understand proofs & facts don't mean they are not proofs & facts. All writings & pictures I have shown are indeed proofs. Proofs conclude facts. This is a standard academic system, in which you are committing the moving the goal post fallacy.

I'm really tired of these people. I have shown enough, including Subak's frontal straight slap (fingers curl to front), Subak's punch, Subak's frontal Knife Hand strike. I also showed Gyuksul's boxing-like Subak history & visible techniques similar to Korean Gwonbub. I also showed Breaking's circus origin including its powerful hitting techniques. I really hope I could touch some objective people & scholars.


----------



## Buka (Jan 6, 2019)




----------



## pdg (Jan 6, 2019)

Newspapers (especially in non democratic regimes) print what they know will please the administration, sometimes that's true, other times not so much.

Archeological drawings are reinterpreted all the time.

History books are proved wrong and amended all the time as well.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 6, 2019)

Yeah, you are moving the goal post fallacy. Newspapers are commonly used as proofs in academia, especially respectable newspapers. All my archaeological drawings look obvious enough. Even Subak's frontal slap picture by mustache man looks either straight frontal slap or frontal knife hand strike. (Among the motions available in Subak, the picture wouldn't be something else than those 2. The fingers curl to front, so I'm saying it's a frontal slap.) Either way, it's a frontal strike. History books are commonly used as proofs. If you wish something to be untrue, then you have to prove it. Otherwise, by default, all my reputable sources speak the truth & they are saying the same thing (not by coincidence).


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Pictures are a legitimate proof.



No they aren't.



Steven Lee said:


> Pictures are used as proofs commonly in history & archaeology just as much as writings.



Please stop using 'proofs' the correct term is simply proof. 



Steven Lee said:


> I don't need to deal with quibbles



And quite frankly we don't need to deal with your nonsense and nonsense it is indeed. You need to have a quiet word with yourself. ditch the ego, the indignation and the whining. if you believe something to be true post up why you think it so in a properly academic way for our perusal and approbation/disagreement. You talk of scholars, yet are most disturbingly not scholarly yourself.

The time has come,' the Walrus said,
      To talk of many things:
Of shoes — and ships — and sealing-wax —
      Of cabbages — and kings —
And why the sea is boiling hot —
      And whether pigs have wings.'


----------



## Buka (Jan 6, 2019)

But to give the devil his due, that horse could be Korean.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Somehow, my links are not working. When I click on them, they add a bunch of letters after the file extension.
> 
> http://cafefiles.naver.net/data8/2005/5/21/49/%BC%F6%B9%DA%C8%F1_1.jpg
> 
> ...


You still aren't asking yourself the most important questions about your evidence: what counter-evidence can I find, and what else could my evidence mean? Until you actually ask and investigate the answers to those two questions, all you can expect is confirmation bias.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Pictures are a legitimate proof what scene, motions, techniques existed in what era. Pictures are a legitimate proof which sport looks similar to what other sport, especially if the name of the sport is the same. Subak's ancient pictures prove what motions, techniques ancient Subak had. Muyedobotongji Gwonbub pictures prove that Taekwondo's Gwonbub part & Gyuksul look similar to Muyedobotongji textbook's Gwonbub. Comparison is easy especially if the motions are unique, it's easy to make connections. Pictures are used as proofs commonly in history & archaeology just as much as writings. That's a fact. Including caveman drawings. Using pictures as a proof is common in history & archaeology. Also, I have many proofs in both writings & pictures in many topics.
> 
> I have many writings for proofs in many topics. I also have many pictures for proofs in many topics. Pictures are commonly used as proofs in academia including history. There are a limited number of sports in a specific region; each sport has a limited number of motions; among the motions available, few motions can look like certain pictures. Process of elimination. Pictures are a proof cause the artist tries to imprint the real life scene into picture. Aside from that obvious logic, it's a fact that pictures are approved by Academia as proof.
> 
> I'm just hoping I could connect with many scholars & objective people. I'm presenting proofs & conclusions in the standard academic ways. Don't need to deal with quibbles & moving the goal post fallacy.


Drawn pictures - especially in the style used in most older sources (including yours) are approximations, and can often be interpreted multiple ways. You are only interested in interpreting them to support your claim, and haven't really considered whether they might show something entirely different.

Your bias is obvious.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> No, I only need to deal with counter evidence or logical necessity. Anything else doesn't do anything. If there is nothing else, my data, proofs, conclusions, inferences are perfect. Either there is counter logic & counter evidence, or there isn't, in which case my conclusions are the facts. I don't have to deal with quibbles that are neither counter evidence provided nor counter logic (logical necessity why something is impossible) presented.
> 
> Reputable evidences say Subak had punch, so Subak had punch. Reputable picture says Subak had frontal slap (& also frontal Knife Hand strike for some pictures), so Subak had frontal slap. Reputable evidences say Subyuk had frontal slap, so it adds to Subak's frontal slap possibility. Reputable evidences say that Breaking is power circus, so Breaking isn't from martial art. Reputable pictures of the same name (Gwonbub) looks similar to many sports today, so there's a connection when that specific name was mentioned in history of Taekwondo. Also, Kyuksul looks similar to Korean Gwonbub. I have reputable evidences in many topics; if there is no counter evidence nor counter logic, my conclusions are automatically the facts.
> 
> Moving the goal post fallacy means "you have to prove this much to qualify as a proof". Like saying ancient or medieval reputable pictures can't be a proof. Like claiming I have to deal with your quibbles that are neither counter evidence nor counter logic. You people are the one moving the goal post fallacy. I'm providing all evidences to the standard level of history & archaeology.


You've chosen to ignore some quite logical counter-arguments and some easy evidence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> For example, George Washington's picture proves what clothes he had.


Actually, if it's a drawing/painting, it doesn't. It would be quite easy for a painter or artist to draw him in any clothes they wish. It was done fairly regularly when mocking politicians.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> No one provided any counter evidence contradicting my Gyuksul proofs, Subak rule proofs, Breaking's origin proofs in any of those 3 threads. Do provide some reference, then we will examine whether the source is reputable & whether the reference is not made up with imagination. (Where did you hear that? That's a question to be asked.)


I provided counter evidence in the breaking thread. It was pretty easy.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 6, 2019)

Buka said:


> View attachment 22031
> But to give the devil his due, that horse could be Korean.



Just more cultural appropriation.

Everyone knows the Koreans were the first to beat dead horses.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 6, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Just more cultural appropriation.
> 
> Everyone knows the Koreans were the first to beat dead horses.


 These seem appropriate right about now.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

Historians commonly accept pictures as proof, including archaeological wall drawings. Those are pictures that represent real life scenes, not a cartoon. Imagining that the painter did some imagined works on his own is outside reasonable doubts. For that reason, Subak had frontal slap and punch. This is because Namsun Choi said Subak had punch 100 years ago. Gimu Hong also said Subak had punch 60 years ago. Subyukta also has nickname "fist". Subyukta also has frontal slap. Subak Dance also has frontal slap. Taekkyeon also has frontal slap. By these corroborations, ancient Subak pictures showing frontal slap is valid & corroborated. Subak had frontal slap & punch.


----------

