If you haven't looked into it already, there are outfits that offer per-student liability insurance targeted at MA. For small outfits, it's a decent way to get coverage without too much cost.
At what point should you refuse or stop teaching someone martial arts?
- Thread starter Monkey Turned Wolf
- Start date
You like eggplant parmesan, brother? If so, that will await you next time. I make a pretty good one.
Agreed. Also worth approaching MA schools to see if any have open time slots they'd be willing to let you fill. I let the school charge students to attend my class. I don't make anything (we'd renegotiate this if I ever had more than a tiny class of students), but I get free space and use of the equipment.
I think existing martial arts schools would be extremely interested, especially if it gives them the opportunity to share the cost of a building. That why they don't pay full price, and you won't pay full price. It's a win - win and the place is all set up. Just make sure you get such agreements in writing.
This statement can fit on almost everything on this planet.
Even if you always stay in the middle, people may still disagree with you.
Sometime people pretend to be in the middle, but the truth is he is not.
A: There are very fine people on both sides.
B: Sorry that I have to disagree with you on this.
Last edited:
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Ive done a bit of research on martial arts specific insurance so I have an idea of what is available. Need to look more and will do so when I feel like the time is right.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Iām not an eggplant guy, but that last one was wonderful, tuna salad sandwich must have been made with fresh tuna? What a difference! Best Iāve ever had. And the chicken soup, excellent. We need to get there when itās safe to travel again. Would love to visit with you a bit.
I have heard to join in AAU will get the best insurance deal.
That's why I don't worry. I just say what I believe and accept that not everyone will agree and that there will be people that will clash with that belief. Better to be honest about what I believe and honest about my opinion. Even if a person is on the extremes. It's still good to know even if other people don't agree or see differently.
If you don't care to be a popular politician, you can say everything from the bottom of your heart.
Life is too short to lie to yourself.
Many won't be interested, because ego and insecurity. I know my primary instructor would never welcome such an arrangement. There are three dojos in my area in the same style (all from the same "parent" instructor). Two were welcoming (one had no space, so sent me to the other, where I now teach, and the third never responded. I later learned that the third scoffed at the very idea of another instructor (of any style, including his own) in his school.
Case in point.
Here is an example.
A: Sport is my path and combat is my goal.
B: Sport is my path and sport is also my goal.
C: To some people, sport is their path and combat is their goal. To others people, sport is their path and also their goal.
Both A and B are extreme and may offend others. C is in the middle. C's opinion will never offend anybody.
If all our forum members have opinion like C has, there won't be anything worthwhile for discussion.
Last edited:
OP
OP
I love this idea!
OP
OP
There's plenty of discussion to come from C. More than from A and B conversing. If A is talking about whether X is good for combat, B is saying "it doesn't matter, since it works in the sport", and vice versa. Only with C can you say "How can we train x for both combat and sport?"
Most discussion come from extreme point of view.
A: What's the relationship between sport and combat?
B: To some people, sport is their path and combat is their goal. To others people, sport is their path and also their goal.
C: Agree!
D: Agree!
... No more posts after that.
A: What's the relationship between sport and combat?
B: Sport is the path and combat is the goal.
C: Disagree! To some people, sport is their path and also their goal.
B: ...
C: ...
... More discussion after this ...
A: What's the relationship between sport and combat?
B: To some people, sport is their path and combat is their goal. To others people, sport is their path and also their goal.
C: Agree!
D: Agree!
... No more posts after that.
A: What's the relationship between sport and combat?
B: Sport is the path and combat is the goal.
C: Disagree! To some people, sport is their path and also their goal.
B: ...
C: ...
... More discussion after this ...
If there is no disagreement, a thread discussion cannot continue.
For example,
You: There's plenty of discussion to come from C.
I: I agree with you 100% on what you have said.
You: Thank you!
I: You are welcome!
As far as my post is concern, my post will end right there. Because if I agree with you, I have nothing more to say.
OP
OP
The disagreement of "this is what I want from it" doesn't generate discussion though. At least once people realize they have different goals. And any discussion that is generated from that is pointless. The disagreement of "how can I best achieve my goal" does allow for useful discussion.
As for your example, here's how it would relate to discussing discussions.
A: I like disagreements because I want to discuss things.
B: I don't like disagreements because I want peace.
C: Some people like and some people don't like disagreements.
A talking to A can result in discussion, or A talking to C. But because they happen to agree on that one thing, doesn't mean discussion cannot happen. That's where nuance comes in...for instance, with A: Let's say I like disagreements to discuss things, but only if it's useful, and you like disagreements regardless of how useful it is, or you may like violent disagreements. Despite us both agreeing with A, we now have a dispute about that statement that we can discuss.
Meng Zi (åå) said, "Sometime one argues because he has no option". The funny thing is when he said that, he was arguing right at that moment.
When you comment my post as the "worst logic in this thread". I have to argue that particular logic was created 2,500 years ago.
The Goodness-Harm Quadrant.
By refusing the reward, you lead others to think accepting the reward money is being greedy.
This logic was formed over 2,500 years ago (551 BC - 479 BC). I just quote the famous ancient Chinese stories.
1. Zi Gong released slave (åč“”čµäŗŗ), and
2. Zi Lu accepted cow (åč·Æåē).
āIn performing good deeds, there is also what seems to be goodness, but is actually not, and what does not appear to be goodness, but actually is.
1. Unintentional Harm - Zi Gong released slave:
For example, in the Spring-Autumn Period, there was a country named Lu. Because there were other countries which took their citizens as slaves or servants, the country of Lu made a law which rewarded those who paid the ransom to regain the freedom of their fellow citizens. At that time, Confucius had a very rich student named Zi Gong. Although Zi Gong paid for the ransom to free his people, he did not accept the reward for doing such a deed. He did it out of good intentions, seeking only to help others and not for the reward money.
But when Confucius heard this, he was very unhappy and scolded him, saying,
āYou acted wrongly in this matter. When saints and sages undertake anything, they strive to improve the social demeanor, teaching the common folk to be good and decent people. One should not do something just because one feels like it. In the country of Lu, the poor outnumber the wealthy. By refusing the reward, you lead others to think accepting the reward money is being greedy. Thus, all the poor people and others who do not wish to appear greedy will hesitate to pay for ransom in the future. Only very rich people will have a chance to practice this deed. If this happens, no one will pay the ransom to free our people again.ā
2. Intentional Goodness - Zi Lu accepted cow:
Another student of Confucius, Zi Lu, once saw a man drowning in a river and went forth to rescue him. Later, the man thanked him by giving him a cow as a token of gratitude. Zi Lu accepted the gift. Confucius was happy when he heard this and said,
āIn the future, people will be willing and eager to help those who are drowning in deep waters or lakes.ā
If we look from the view of the common people, Zi Gong, who did not accept the reward money, was good. And Zi Lu, who accepted the cow, was not as good. Who would have known that Confucius praised Zi Lu instead and scolded Zi Gong?
From this, we can see that those who practice kind deeds must not only look at the present outcome, but should consider the actās effect in the long run. One should not only consider oneās own gain and loss, but should look to see the impact made on the public. What we do right now may be good, but with passing years, it may inflict harm upon others. Therefore, what seems like goodness may in fact be the opposite. And what appears to be the opposite of goodness may someday turn out to be goodness done after all.
Last edited:
Yep which is why I'm not a politician lol. Come to think of it, I'm not popular either. But I'm happy. lol
