Ahh yes, the ostrich principle, bury your head in the sand and you'll be safe, because if you can't see the predators, they can't see you. Makes perfect sense to me :uhyeah:
"Evilness"and "morality" of Martial Arts
- Thread starter Ceicei
- Start date
Ahh yes, the ostrich principle, bury your head in the sand and you'll be safe, because if you can't see the predators, they can't see you. Makes perfect sense to me :uhyeah:
Ceicei, my heart goes out to you because I know that this adds to your frustration in your attempts to achieve (some of ) your goals as a MA-ist. I can understand the line of thought of how can one receive the rank of black-belt if they haven't properly learned the fullness of the techniques listed for that rank? How would you call yourself a true EPAK BB if you continued under these instructors and their ideals and gotten the rank from them? It's not fair that they've gotten their rank in the fullness of the teachings and that they water-down yours because they don't think it's right anymore.
Your two instructors I think are confusing their own personal religious beliefs and doctrine into their instructions. They may think it's wrong to kill and by forfeit think it's wrong to teach someone to kill. But IMO they have strayed from the true teachings and principals of MA altogether by the insertion of their own personal beliefs into their teachings.
Knowing your area and situation and the difficulties in getting a regular f/t EPAK teacher makes it that much more difficult for you to obtain your goal(s). But knowing you, you'll persist til you achieve it, even if it means miles of travel to/from. :asian:
I agree with Tellner with his statements. What is evil is defined by those who witness the act or see the results. Any LEO will tell you saving your life or the life of defenseless others isn't evil but a right under our present constitution.
No, nobody really wants to take it to the final level. But anyone who has read the threads found in MT's Horror Stories, The Study and elsewhere will agree that sometimes the final level of defense is necessary. Having the skills to do what is necessary is essential in any MA/SD.
As previously stated it's the choice to perform those skills that determines the level of morality and evilness of the person. Your instructors are taking away your free will to decide to implement those lethal techniques by not teaching you so to salve their own conscious. "If she kills someone then at least it wasn't ME who taught her how to do that!" They might as well give up teaching altogether or change the name of their school and the art that they're teaching.
I'm feeling that SRGM Parker (if he were alive today) wouldn't appreciate it knowing that what he set down as a standard to achieve this or that ranking is being watered down for the sake of morality. I know I wouldn't if I had created an art with techniques that needed to be taught in their entirety.
I would talk to the SR. BB and the founders of your original school (you know who I mean) about this. Sure the present instructors have a right to teach what they want... so long as they don't use the old school's name and that they don't call it EPAK anymore because they're not doing it as it should be taught, IMO. :asian:
Far as teaching children. I am in somewhat agreement of removing lethal techs but suitable alternatives should be put in place until such a time that the child is old enough to make the appropriate decision. Sometimes even a child might have to resort to extreme violence to get away from a (human) predator. As horrific as that line of thought may be, reading the aforementioned threads in their respective forums I feel backs up this line of thought.
Your two instructors I think are confusing their own personal religious beliefs and doctrine into their instructions. They may think it's wrong to kill and by forfeit think it's wrong to teach someone to kill. But IMO they have strayed from the true teachings and principals of MA altogether by the insertion of their own personal beliefs into their teachings.
Knowing your area and situation and the difficulties in getting a regular f/t EPAK teacher makes it that much more difficult for you to obtain your goal(s). But knowing you, you'll persist til you achieve it, even if it means miles of travel to/from. :asian:
I agree with Tellner with his statements. What is evil is defined by those who witness the act or see the results. Any LEO will tell you saving your life or the life of defenseless others isn't evil but a right under our present constitution.
No, nobody really wants to take it to the final level. But anyone who has read the threads found in MT's Horror Stories, The Study and elsewhere will agree that sometimes the final level of defense is necessary. Having the skills to do what is necessary is essential in any MA/SD.
As previously stated it's the choice to perform those skills that determines the level of morality and evilness of the person. Your instructors are taking away your free will to decide to implement those lethal techniques by not teaching you so to salve their own conscious. "If she kills someone then at least it wasn't ME who taught her how to do that!" They might as well give up teaching altogether or change the name of their school and the art that they're teaching.
I'm feeling that SRGM Parker (if he were alive today) wouldn't appreciate it knowing that what he set down as a standard to achieve this or that ranking is being watered down for the sake of morality. I know I wouldn't if I had created an art with techniques that needed to be taught in their entirety.
I would talk to the SR. BB and the founders of your original school (you know who I mean) about this. Sure the present instructors have a right to teach what they want... so long as they don't use the old school's name and that they don't call it EPAK anymore because they're not doing it as it should be taught, IMO. :asian:
Far as teaching children. I am in somewhat agreement of removing lethal techs but suitable alternatives should be put in place until such a time that the child is old enough to make the appropriate decision. Sometimes even a child might have to resort to extreme violence to get away from a (human) predator. As horrific as that line of thought may be, reading the aforementioned threads in their respective forums I feel backs up this line of thought.
I think this is the single most important point. Over the course of time the student-teacher relationship develops to the extent that there are no secrets, the teacher is an open book. If that is not a possibility in your case, your path is clear.
Lynne
Master of Arts
Oh, great, more political correctness junk.
In Tang Soo Do, we believe in peaceful conflict resolution, but the world is not a nice place. We need to be able defend ourselves and our loved ones.
If I am attacked, a slap across my attacker's face is not going to stop him but a hammerfist to the groin, breaking his elbow, followed by a foot sweep and his skull being cracked open might stop him.
What are your instructors thinking?
In Tang Soo Do, we believe in peaceful conflict resolution, but the world is not a nice place. We need to be able defend ourselves and our loved ones.
If I am attacked, a slap across my attacker's face is not going to stop him but a hammerfist to the groin, breaking his elbow, followed by a foot sweep and his skull being cracked open might stop him.
What are your instructors thinking?
thardey
Master Black Belt
Which techniques have they abolished? Punching? Tripping? Shoving? Elbows?
Any of these could lead to death, if the conditions are correct (or incorrect). I mean, talk about a slippery slope!
My guess is, not that they truly want to avoid "evil" and be "moral", but that they want to be more marketable, but won't come out and say it.
Teach the pretty techs, give people a false sense of security, don't make them think too hard, and you get wider customer base!
= Money!
Any of these could lead to death, if the conditions are correct (or incorrect). I mean, talk about a slippery slope!
My guess is, not that they truly want to avoid "evil" and be "moral", but that they want to be more marketable, but won't come out and say it.
Teach the pretty techs, give people a false sense of security, don't make them think too hard, and you get wider customer base!
= Money!
The simple fact that every technique, just like technicology or medical techniques or anything else, is morally neutral by itself. Knowledge is morally neutral.
Anything can be used for good or for evil. Between two loving adults, sexual intercourse is an expression of love. But the same actions, done in a rape situation, are evil. If I use the gun I carry to save my life or that of another, perhaps in a school shooting situation... MY use of that gun is morally good. The shooter's use? Morally evil. Point pounded into the ground now.
As a martial arts instructor who chooses to train in and teach a combative, realistic system, it's my responsibility to be careful who I teach, and what techniques I teach certain students. I won't teach the most lethal or most destructive techniques to kids; I won't teach someone whose lack of morality scares me at all. But I trust my adult students to exercise sound and appropriate judgement when they have to defend themselves.
Anything can be used for good or for evil. Between two loving adults, sexual intercourse is an expression of love. But the same actions, done in a rape situation, are evil. If I use the gun I carry to save my life or that of another, perhaps in a school shooting situation... MY use of that gun is morally good. The shooter's use? Morally evil. Point pounded into the ground now.
As a martial arts instructor who chooses to train in and teach a combative, realistic system, it's my responsibility to be careful who I teach, and what techniques I teach certain students. I won't teach the most lethal or most destructive techniques to kids; I won't teach someone whose lack of morality scares me at all. But I trust my adult students to exercise sound and appropriate judgement when they have to defend themselves.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,930
- Reaction score
- 1,452
While I think what you're experiencing is a little different, Ceicei, my perspective on this gives me a little appreciation for what your-I hope soon not to be-instructors are goind through.
First, though, you should maybe look at this article.
In a nutshell, the guy was a victim of his training, and maybe defense lawyers who weren't familiar enough with the doctrine of self defense in New York. he was a victim of his training because knife-only training doesn't offer much in the way of options. He was possibly as victim of poor defense because given the relative sizes him and his friend to the bouncer, and the fact that a choke hold to the extent that someone's legs are probably off the floor, make the circumstances (IMNSHO) one that merited the use of deadly force, provided the fellow who did the stabbing was in legitimate fear for his friend's life, and got that fact on the record-of course, his subsequent actions did nothing for his case, and he was convicted.
Relevance? In our society, the Atienza's (the defendant's instructors) could easily-and may still-find themselves in court as liable for what they taught the young man, if not as a matter of criminal liability, then a civil one.
More importantly, as an instructor myself, I think that there's a responsibility involved in choosing just whom you impart certain information to. It's for this reason, and this reason alone, that I use contracts-the contract is an obligation on my part to take a student to a certain level, and I don't have any that go from white belt to black, they're all curriculum based. That means, that if someone proves to be, well, potentially irresponsible (since I can't really say that they're an *******) I can conclude the contract and tell them I don't want to teach them anymore.
You're right about judo-more right than a lot of people are aware of. Almost all the throws are potentially deadly, and some that are rather commonplace and learned early on, koshi-garuma, for example, have imbedded adjustments that almost ensure grave injury, if not death. Of course, when I teach new students koshi-garuma, I don't mention this at all-in fact, no one knows about it until they're at brown belt, and I've had very few of those. Ditto most knife techniques, "harder" chokes, neck destructions, etc.This is probably what your instructors should be doing, rather than altering and adjusting the curriculum to suit a more (I think) "moral, family atmosphere."
Or, in other words, a more commercially viable one.
(jeez, two people said pretty much what I did with a lot less words while I was typing this....:lol: )
First, though, you should maybe look at this article.
In a nutshell, the guy was a victim of his training, and maybe defense lawyers who weren't familiar enough with the doctrine of self defense in New York. he was a victim of his training because knife-only training doesn't offer much in the way of options. He was possibly as victim of poor defense because given the relative sizes him and his friend to the bouncer, and the fact that a choke hold to the extent that someone's legs are probably off the floor, make the circumstances (IMNSHO) one that merited the use of deadly force, provided the fellow who did the stabbing was in legitimate fear for his friend's life, and got that fact on the record-of course, his subsequent actions did nothing for his case, and he was convicted.
Relevance? In our society, the Atienza's (the defendant's instructors) could easily-and may still-find themselves in court as liable for what they taught the young man, if not as a matter of criminal liability, then a civil one.
More importantly, as an instructor myself, I think that there's a responsibility involved in choosing just whom you impart certain information to. It's for this reason, and this reason alone, that I use contracts-the contract is an obligation on my part to take a student to a certain level, and I don't have any that go from white belt to black, they're all curriculum based. That means, that if someone proves to be, well, potentially irresponsible (since I can't really say that they're an *******) I can conclude the contract and tell them I don't want to teach them anymore.
You're right about judo-more right than a lot of people are aware of. Almost all the throws are potentially deadly, and some that are rather commonplace and learned early on, koshi-garuma, for example, have imbedded adjustments that almost ensure grave injury, if not death. Of course, when I teach new students koshi-garuma, I don't mention this at all-in fact, no one knows about it until they're at brown belt, and I've had very few of those. Ditto most knife techniques, "harder" chokes, neck destructions, etc.This is probably what your instructors should be doing, rather than altering and adjusting the curriculum to suit a more (I think) "moral, family atmosphere."
Or, in other words, a more commercially viable one.
(jeez, two people said pretty much what I did with a lot less words while I was typing this....:lol: )
Nomad
Master Black Belt
By making this "moral" decision for you, they are removing your ability to choose. Techniques aren't evil. How you use them could be.
If you give a simple push to an old man at the top of a flight of stairs, he will likely fall down and break his neck. This would be considered evil by most of us. A rape victim (or potential victim) who gouges out the eyes of her assailant would be viewed in quite another way. The push is not evil and the eye gouging is not good; both are tools of varying complexity which a martial artist should have available to them, especially if self-defense is one of their primary goals.
Context means everything. There is no such thing as a "fair" fight, and there are no such things as "evil" techniques.
What they are really saying with these arguments is that they don't trust their students, and they are afraid that some of them will use the techniques in an inappropriate manner... and they don't want to be responsible for that. It is easier to simply remove the techniques from the curriculum than it would be to accurately judge who could learn them and when (without worrying about them abusing the techniques).
If you give a simple push to an old man at the top of a flight of stairs, he will likely fall down and break his neck. This would be considered evil by most of us. A rape victim (or potential victim) who gouges out the eyes of her assailant would be viewed in quite another way. The push is not evil and the eye gouging is not good; both are tools of varying complexity which a martial artist should have available to them, especially if self-defense is one of their primary goals.
Context means everything. There is no such thing as a "fair" fight, and there are no such things as "evil" techniques.
What they are really saying with these arguments is that they don't trust their students, and they are afraid that some of them will use the techniques in an inappropriate manner... and they don't want to be responsible for that. It is easier to simply remove the techniques from the curriculum than it would be to accurately judge who could learn them and when (without worrying about them abusing the techniques).
- Thread Starter
- #29
I was so tempted to directly ask my instructors, "Were you ever attacked?" but I suppose that may be unfair for them as it would be a loaded question, especially when coming from me. I want to become skilled so that the next time...<pause>
<sigh> I wonder if I am too much of a pessimist and see things darkly. The thing is--we cannot avoid the fact there are people who think and do in evil ways. I do believe, however, that generally, most people are good and have good intentions. Having a level of skepticism while allowing for some trust (and reliance on gut feeling) is the view I hold.
Being aware and preparing for possibilities are my live long pursuit. There are some people who hint that doing martial arts and having firearms border on paranoia and fear. On the contrary, I think that being aware and having those tools (martial arts skills and firearms) is simply adding to a range of choices and a person should have a strong sense of right and wrong in deciding which choice to do.
<looking at the wall while thinking>
I am trying to decide my options.
I want more kenpo and I want to be challenged. I would love going back to my previous kenpo instructor who taught me much and emphasized the reality of life and the exploration of how to make things work, but returning back to him is not to be at this point.
It is not too far off before I get my kenpo black belt; yet if I stay and get my black belt under my current instructors in spite of their instruction, wouldn't that be considered "chasing a rank"? Could I get my black belt from them and then go elsewhere to continue my training the way that fits with my training goals? Currently, I cross-train with another style (jujitsu) and my DZRJ instructor, thankfully, is a strong advocate in being prepared. He is not adverse to teaching moves that could be lethal.
If I decide to go elsewhere now to train with kenpo (which would make that studio a seventh one on my journey), there is a possibility of starting over at white again (which I have had to do twice before with other studios). For quality instruction under an excellent instructor, I don't mind starting over--It helps ensure that I get the basics down solidly through repetition. On the other hand, another studio may still allow me to keep the rank--although I know they will expect me to learn how to do things their way.
There is a small thought in the back of my mind "when will I ever become a black belt?" My former instructor had said in several different ways that a "black belt" is an attitude and is more than just the color. The color is not a reflection of skill, although ideally, it should match the skill level.
I have much to ponder on which direction to take with my journey.
- Ceicei
<sigh> I wonder if I am too much of a pessimist and see things darkly. The thing is--we cannot avoid the fact there are people who think and do in evil ways. I do believe, however, that generally, most people are good and have good intentions. Having a level of skepticism while allowing for some trust (and reliance on gut feeling) is the view I hold.
Being aware and preparing for possibilities are my live long pursuit. There are some people who hint that doing martial arts and having firearms border on paranoia and fear. On the contrary, I think that being aware and having those tools (martial arts skills and firearms) is simply adding to a range of choices and a person should have a strong sense of right and wrong in deciding which choice to do.
<looking at the wall while thinking>
I am trying to decide my options.
I want more kenpo and I want to be challenged. I would love going back to my previous kenpo instructor who taught me much and emphasized the reality of life and the exploration of how to make things work, but returning back to him is not to be at this point.
It is not too far off before I get my kenpo black belt; yet if I stay and get my black belt under my current instructors in spite of their instruction, wouldn't that be considered "chasing a rank"? Could I get my black belt from them and then go elsewhere to continue my training the way that fits with my training goals? Currently, I cross-train with another style (jujitsu) and my DZRJ instructor, thankfully, is a strong advocate in being prepared. He is not adverse to teaching moves that could be lethal.
If I decide to go elsewhere now to train with kenpo (which would make that studio a seventh one on my journey), there is a possibility of starting over at white again (which I have had to do twice before with other studios). For quality instruction under an excellent instructor, I don't mind starting over--It helps ensure that I get the basics down solidly through repetition. On the other hand, another studio may still allow me to keep the rank--although I know they will expect me to learn how to do things their way.
There is a small thought in the back of my mind "when will I ever become a black belt?" My former instructor had said in several different ways that a "black belt" is an attitude and is more than just the color. The color is not a reflection of skill, although ideally, it should match the skill level.
I have much to ponder on which direction to take with my journey.
- Ceicei
- Thread Starter
- #30
Another thought I've been thinking.
I can still continue practicing at home the more lethal versions of the techniques I previously learned. Of course, I can graft different moves into other techniques. It is not the same thing though, as being able to learn the nuances and the how and why under the watchful eye of a more experienced martial artist.
Back to the original point that started this thread... I don't think instructors who thought the same way as my current ones do are all that rare. I've been reading through different threads here and there and it made me wonder how many out there who hold the same view.
How do you who are instructors reconcile the liability issues with the teaching of certain moves/methods/techniques that could be considered dangerous?
- Ceicei
I can still continue practicing at home the more lethal versions of the techniques I previously learned. Of course, I can graft different moves into other techniques. It is not the same thing though, as being able to learn the nuances and the how and why under the watchful eye of a more experienced martial artist.
Back to the original point that started this thread... I don't think instructors who thought the same way as my current ones do are all that rare. I've been reading through different threads here and there and it made me wonder how many out there who hold the same view.
How do you who are instructors reconcile the liability issues with the teaching of certain moves/methods/techniques that could be considered dangerous?
- Ceicei
- Thread Starter
- #31
That's such a good point that highlights an important area of responsibility I thought it worth re-stating :tup:.
As has been said in several excellent ways by others above, the techniques of an art are not inherently Good or Evil (other than "Monkey Steals A Peach" of course
) but rather the person using them and the use to which they are put infuses them with such qualities.I've said myself on several occaisions on similar threads, that one of the duties of a good teacher of martial arts is to excercise judgement as to whom they teach. Train a good person in an art and you have shown someone how to defend themselves should they ever need to. Teach a thug how to employ effective martial arts techniques and all you have is a more dangerous thug.
It's one of the reasons why I don't like large, commercial, dojo's i.e. it's hard for those running them to employ their moral divining rods to weed out the 'bad' ones when the roster gets too lengthy.
It's a very legitimate question. I'd ask them privately, outside of class, preferably outside the school. They are obviously coming from a radically different place than you are. Your experiences are much different, especially since you talk about "the next time". If anyone's reality checks are bouncing it's theirs. Your attitude is completely reasonable.
Now there is a danger in being obsessed with the dangerous stuff. You can drive yourself crazy by filling your mind with scenarios, bad memories and practicing the lethal stuff with a vicious attitude to the exclusion of everything else. The same thing in an attenuated form is a common part of a martial artist's development from time to time. Once fear isn't a problem anymore it dies down. It's all a matter of striking a realistic dynamic balance in your life.
I know what you're saying. My youngest sister and I have not spoken for the past two years and will probably not again. She made it abundantly clear that as long as I do martial arts and own firearms I am not welcome in her house or in social situations with her children.
The sort of mindset you are describing is common with people who have never had to deal with the bad people in the world on a physical level. They do not want to even take a hard look at that part of life because it's unpleasant and alien. Many times they are suspicious of anyone who touches that world let alone carries it around with them.
Sometimes they're right. The twitchy tactical-everything sort of MAist or shooter who is always talking about or looking for trouble isn't someone you want to spend much time around. If you're otherwise reasonably well-balanced and they're still afraid they're the ones with the problem.
The Cert is useful. There's no reason not to get the reward and recognition for your hard work, especially if it isn't far off and will help you in your later martial arts relations. If these guys are the only ones in town you might have to tough it out and then go somewhere else for further training. If they aren't, remember the classic Motown song "You Better Shop Around". You're not going to be happy there in the long term. Their values are not compatible with yours, and it sounds like there are other underlying personality conflicts under the surface. Life is too short to stay somewhere where you and the people you are with aren't happy with each other.
Seven schools? That's quite a few. You might want to consider why you've been switching so often, especially if it's not due to things like moving, schools closing or the like. Starting over can be alright. It can also be a waste of your time after a certain point. Doing the first six months twenty times is not the same as doing ten years.
There are two new students in our Silat class. One has a black belt in TKD. She's going through the usual cross-training problems compounded by her reflexes from the other style. But she's making good progress. The other has had fifteen or twenty years of Silat in the Netherlands and Indonesia. The two or them are at about the same level in our curriculum. But nobody treats him like a beginner. His skill is obvious, so he trains mostly with more advanced students and gets pushed as far as those of us who have been at it a while.
It's one of the things that makes me glad we don't have a graded rank structure beyond "Student" and "Teacher".
He's right, of course. But if you have a system which gives it as a sign that you've gotten to a certain level it's nice to know that you're there. And it can help open other doors.
As you said, you have a lot to think about. Good luck.
kidswarrior
Senior Master
No, I'd say it could be thought of as finishing a long-standing goal. And no, it's not ideal, but sometimes we have to let go of our idealism and exchange it for the realism of a given situation. I was personally held back from black belt for several years longer than I later found out was usual. When I did go elsewhere and begin to work with someone else, he made me a second degree almost immediately (I had eight years in the art). So it worked out, I guess, but my point is, reality is sometimes messy and spills 'outside the lines' (to use a preschool analogy--hey, my wife used to teach it, and I helped out, so...
).Sounds like a solid plan to me.
As has been said, it is not the techniques that are inherently dangerous; it is the user of those techniques, along the same lines of the slogan "Guns don't kill people, People kill people". As Morph mentioned here, fire and water can be weapons if applied appropriately - fire, for example, can be used to heat a home, or to burn the home down; should we, then, ban the use of fire, because it can be used to kill? Fire is a tool that can be used as a weapon.
Likewise, many techniques taught in MAs can be used as lethal techniques - even the most basic of kicks, punches, and holds can cause death if applied correctly... or incorrectly. I have to wonder what your instructors would do if someone in your class accidentally (and I do mean accidentally, rather than accidentally on purpose) injured someone because they didn't know that the technique used could be lethal? A punch or kick to the throat, if precise enough, and delivered with enough power, can kill by crushing the trachea; likewise, a hold to the throat, done correctly, can kill the opponent. All of these techniques have less lethal applications, but following the chain of logic your instructors are apparently using, they should be removed as well... where will they stop? I think you are quite right to be concerned.
As an instructor, I consider it my responsibility to not teach techniques to students who I don't think will use them responsibly. I realize that there will be people who disagree with this, who will say that I have the responsibility to teach anyone who pays the fee - and I have yet to refuse any student the opportunity to train - but I could see a situation in which I would refuse to teach certain people certain techniques, based on their personal outlook; however, this type of person tends to respond poorly to the discipline present in many MAs and leave before the issue arises.
Also, it is important to remember that all students are individuals. As a special education teacher, it is my job to take students from wherever they are as far as they are able to go - and that is how I approach instructing TKD as well. Some students will not be able to go as far as others, or may take longer, or may be physically incapable of certain techniques - or they may be unready mentally to be taught certain things. I will still instruct them as appropriate to their abilities and individual needs - but each one is different. Some may pick things up more easily and/or quickly than others; some will be ready for advanced techniques sooner than others, and some may never be ready - but I would never remove techniques and/or refuse to teach them across the board because they might be misused.
Likewise, many techniques taught in MAs can be used as lethal techniques - even the most basic of kicks, punches, and holds can cause death if applied correctly... or incorrectly. I have to wonder what your instructors would do if someone in your class accidentally (and I do mean accidentally, rather than accidentally on purpose) injured someone because they didn't know that the technique used could be lethal? A punch or kick to the throat, if precise enough, and delivered with enough power, can kill by crushing the trachea; likewise, a hold to the throat, done correctly, can kill the opponent. All of these techniques have less lethal applications, but following the chain of logic your instructors are apparently using, they should be removed as well... where will they stop? I think you are quite right to be concerned.
As an instructor, I consider it my responsibility to not teach techniques to students who I don't think will use them responsibly. I realize that there will be people who disagree with this, who will say that I have the responsibility to teach anyone who pays the fee - and I have yet to refuse any student the opportunity to train - but I could see a situation in which I would refuse to teach certain people certain techniques, based on their personal outlook; however, this type of person tends to respond poorly to the discipline present in many MAs and leave before the issue arises.
Also, it is important to remember that all students are individuals. As a special education teacher, it is my job to take students from wherever they are as far as they are able to go - and that is how I approach instructing TKD as well. Some students will not be able to go as far as others, or may take longer, or may be physically incapable of certain techniques - or they may be unready mentally to be taught certain things. I will still instruct them as appropriate to their abilities and individual needs - but each one is different. Some may pick things up more easily and/or quickly than others; some will be ready for advanced techniques sooner than others, and some may never be ready - but I would never remove techniques and/or refuse to teach them across the board because they might be misused.
Gordon Nore
Senior Master
I'm still struggling over over the use of the word, "evil," in this context. Had the instructor said the techniques were too "lethal" for his comfort level, I could half-way understand his point. But if he has removed techniques that are "evil," I assume he has kept others that are "less evil." (I mean, "less lethal.")
This is a total shot in the dark: Is there any possibility that the techniques in question, being more lethal, are also more complicated to teach and supervise? Could it be that the teachers are in over their heads and are not forthcoming about it? Am I being too conspiratorial?
It's ok to tell me.:soapbox:
This is a total shot in the dark: Is there any possibility that the techniques in question, being more lethal, are also more complicated to teach and supervise? Could it be that the teachers are in over their heads and are not forthcoming about it? Am I being too conspiratorial?
It's ok to tell me.:soapbox:
- Thread Starter
- #37
Perhaps so. I probably will not ask them that question though, at least not at this time.
It was that way before when I hadn't mentally and emotionally recovered. That thought pattern turned out to be rather destructive. It took quite a while (years actually) before I realized what I was doing and had to work my way through it.tellner said:
It was not until I learned to trust myself and felt at peace with who I am before I considered expanding my martial arts study (and this included the possibility of concealed carry and the responsibilities that come with this).
I agree with you. It is in every group, including martial arts, that people holding extreme views (either too much or too little) could be found. I would hope that I am considered stable by the majority of the people I associate.tellner said:
This is not the only school in town; however, I am close to getting my black belt, so I probably will at least get that, then seek elsewhere for more indepth training. There is so much left to learn of kenpo, I'm just scratching the surface.tellner said:
Fair question to ask why so many. Let me give you a very brief summary.tellner said:
First school was at a college (taken as a class). I couldn't train there when I transferred to a different college. Second school was a new one that closed down. Third one was set up by an instructor who used to be my tutor and mentor with my first school. I liked being there, but then moved out of state. Before I returned, his school had closed. My fourth was run by a very accomplished instructor who had several schools "all over the place" in different towns (and one other state). I had been married a few short years and had two very young toddlers so training was a challenge. We eventually moved to a different town and family life took precedence. I didn't train for about seven years. My son discovered my box of karate gear, uniform, belts, and trophies and he wanted to take up a martial art. That caused me to decide to get back into training and I found an excellent school that fit my training style. The instructor really knew how to get me to do more than I dreamed possible. I trained with him for a little over four years before he had to close down. Two black belts (one a newly minted bb at the time) used to teach there and when the school closed, they decided to go elsewhere and open their own school by by bringing over some students with them. This became my sixth school and its been in existence for about a year now.
Thank you.tellner said:
- Ceicei
- Thread Starter
- #38
Well, one of them is a bb of less than two years (and very newly minted bb when the school started), so I don't know if I can safely chalk that up to inexperience. The other instructor had joined the previous school when he already had a black belt, so he learned the school's methods in less than a year (he already knew kenpo) and then taught there as an assistant instructor for one year. When it closed, he decided to set up his own school (first time owner). Whatever their purpose is, they own this school now and can do as they wish with the material.
What their true reasons are, I don't know. It just struck me as odd for them to say that they changed techniques because some moves were 'evil' and the changing is 'moral'. I can understand the liability angle though.
- Ceicei
dart68
Orange Belt
Using the term "evil" to decribe certain techniques strikes me as odd, too. I wonder if there is some sort of religious conotation to this. If so, then I fear that it may be religious fanaticism rearing it's ugly head. Please understand that I'm not bashing anyone's beliefs, but fanaticism is dangerous in itself.
I think you may need to go elsewhere, again.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,692
- Reaction score
- 176
So if I understand this correctly, both teachers are first degrees?
That explains a lot.
Similar threads
- Poll
