- Thread Starter
- #221
nor have I posted anything negative or attacked anyone in any way. I will not get personal & I will continue to post with courtesy.
Obviously, other people feel differently.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
nor have I posted anything negative or attacked anyone in any way. I will not get personal & I will continue to post with courtesy.
They didn't start out that way, but that is what they have become. You've both gone well past what most would consider productive discussion and well past what most would be considered productive debate.I am sorry as I don't look at these exchanges as "bickering",
No offense, but you are every bit as entrenched in your postition as Puunui is in his.I also remain open minded & wish more would. I am not on any side, but am simply looking to learn more.
are really not as open minded as they would like to believe and really only want you to be open their point of view. In the context of a debate, the implication by the one saying it is that they are open minded while their opponent is close minded.a mind is like a parachute, it works BEST when it is OPEN!
The fact is that in all of the threads where the two of you get into protracted debate, it is the same debate. You both argue the same points over and over again, seemingly in some vain attempt to have the last word.
Yourself and Chris have far fewer posts exchanged between the two of you, though frankly, the nature of those exchanges are such that less is probably more.
but all this so call bickering is just plain stupid because you will never agree or change your mindset to believe anything except what you have been told.:asian:
Yes, that is a better way of putting it. Same result: a debate about General Choi.I would disagree that it is the same debate; I would say that it is different debates with the same result. I guess that came look like the same debate, but I don't think it really is. For example, the very last one, about President Park hating General Choi to the point of doing things to thwart him, is simply not true, because if what they were saying was true, there would have been a completely different result for General Choi. Think about it, if you were President Park, and you hated General Choi, would you have allowed the ROK military to teach General Choi's forms? Different debate, same result.
I'll have to take your word there.There is a purpose to that one.
Yes, that is a better way of putting it. Same result: a debate about General Choi.
Common denomenator: General Choi.Or rather same result: General Choi lied once again.
Who of the pioneers did not lie, I mean really. All of them had what they believe to be the truth based on what they believe was being said. I cannot comment because I have been told many stories over the years, which one to believe, maybe none of them and just start believing in what I can see.
Yes I have posted negative things about people involved in the history of TKD. However I never made any personal attacks against them & please correct me if I am wrong & I will go on record corre ting it myself & making amends where ever needed, with the appropriate apologies.I don't think that she's negative or has attacked other board members. Both you and she have had negative things to say about various figures in taekwondo history. In fairness, your comments about such people have been far more scathing than hers.
I think that this is a valid point & legitimate concern. I will try to move some replies & posts to separate threads & keep points refuted to single reponses, not adding more than 1 in a reply.The fact is that in all of the threads where the two of you get into protracted debate, it is the same debate. You both argue the same points over and over again, seemingly in some vain attempt to have the last word. And that is what people are tiring of (though if they truly are tining of it, they could simply avoid this thread and one or two others. Their continued reading and participation is entirely their own doing, myself included).
Yourself and Chris have far fewer posts exchanged between the two of you, though frankly, the nature of those exchanges are such that less is probably more.
Daniel
Yes Sir, good points. By open minded, I mean more fair. I am the 1st to say that TKD came from karate, but is not karate, it is Korean TKD. I am also very clear that the path taken, was actually 2 major ones, original, ITF, Chang Hon TKD or Olympic, WTF, Kukki TKD.They didn't start out that way, but that is what they have become. You've both gone well past what most would consider productive discussion and well past what most would be considered productive debate.
No offense, but you are every bit as entrenched in your postition as Puunui is in his.
99.9% of the time, I find that people who say,
are really not as open minded as they would like to believe and really only want you to be open their point of view. In the context of a debate, the implication by the one saying it is that they are open minded while their opponent is close minded.
In most debates/arguments, both individuals are equally close minded. It comes down to what you are trying to achieve. If you are trying to learn what the other person has to say, you wouldn't be debating or arguing. In a debate, the goal is to make a stronger case for your position than the person you are debating against.
Being close minded regarding a subject is also not always bad, as the parachute saying implies. I am closed minded, for example, to the arguement that the holocaust never happened. I give it no weight. The weight of evidence and historical accounts leave no room for such a silly assertion. Same goes for the idea of a flat earth. I am closed to that idea because it is proven to be round and successfull navigation of international air and sea travel based on a round earth leaves no room for a flat earth. Entertainment value aside, why be open to arguements to the contrary?
Don't get me wrong; I'm a fan of spirited debate because it benefits both participants by forcing them to present cogent and supportable arguments. Debate is also beneficial to those in the audience because they are getting to hear two opposing views in real time and may then decide for themselves what to think.
But debates have absolutely nothing to do with open mindedness and rarely result in a debator being swayed by the argument of the other party.
Daniel
Yes thanks for sharing those links.You know, a while back we had some nice discussions with the Author of A Killing Art...
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85330&highlight=Alex+Gillis
He is/was a member of MT... perhaps someone could entice him to hear his side and perspective... again...
EVERYBODY COMES TO MT!
Sir I don't think that there is a need for compromise or better yet, the compromise can be simple:I would love to add to this converstation about proper ettique, but then again we cannot simply because TKD has not had any except for those that believe the same way you do. I know my input would just bring certain people to say but that was not the right way of the elders or this is completely wrong because so and so said so? I would love to see TKD grow as a whole but to be honest to many chiefs and not enough compromising to bring people together for the betterment of TKD.:asian:
Again, the history is there. While some may not wish to acknowledge it, it is still there. Go to the time line & you will see how things broke down & got worse, not only for Gen Choi, but many Koreans, including Gen Park, which resulted in his ever more harsh & brutal tactics being deployed.I would disagree that it is the same debate; I would say that it is different debates with the same result. I guess that came look like the same debate, but I don't think it really is. For example, the very last one, about President Park hating General Choi to the point of doing things to thwart him, is simply not true, because if what they were saying was true, there would have been a completely different result for General Choi. Think about it, if you were President Park, and you hated General Choi, would you have allowed the ROK military to teach General Choi's forms? Different debate, same result.
The debate about Gen Choi is often heated as many do not like to acknowledge what he did with his TKD or the role that he played in the early days of TKD, before the split occurred.Yes, that is a better way of putting it. Same result: a debate about General Choi. Daniel
I am not so sure that all of it was lies. People see things differently. All of us have various levels of recall & interpretation etc. People were involved in the development of more than 1 TKD, so that in & of itself is reason for numerous accounts. None of which can be looked at as lies, but rather different stories of the various paths of development.Who of the pioneers did not lie, I mean really. All of them had what they believe to be the truth based on what they believe was being said. I cannot comment because I have been told many stories over the years, which one to believe, maybe none of them and just start believing in what I can see.