Karate's Breaking/Tameshiwari has lineage to Korean Breaking Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu

[JowGaWolf]

Logically can conclude the correct conclusion even with hatred against opponent & while favoring that conclusion. Happy coincidence is a valid concept.

And you just "keep digging a deeper hole."

 

[Steven Lee]

As I said, agenda or motivation is irrelevant to how my contents are logically sound & properly referenced. Those things make the contents legitimate. Whether I have agenda or not is irrelevant to the quality of the contents. You are plainly committing Ad hominem fallacy.

Also, there's no agenda. As for my motivations, I don't want injustice; that's my motivation.

Whatever you pretend, 0 result is made in the reality. This thread seems done though. I hope I connected to enough objective people & historians. If they take my writings seriously, they will know I make sense regardless of my motivation, agenda, whatever which didn't affect my contents.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Forget my "agenda", motivation, whatever. Focus strictly on my contents with logic & references.

Yeah, I don't care about the rest of people. I'm focusing on connecting to objective people & historians.

Mas Oyama claimed to have learned Gwonbeop which he became first Dan in his second year of middle school. As for whether that Gwonbeop is Korean Gwonbeop or Chinese Quan Fa was unclear, except that Quan Fa has no such thing as Dan according to you.

I don't have bias in my contents. The conclusions are inferred logically from my references without any bias or fallacy. Happy coincidence that those conclusions happen to be true.

As I said, I'm focusing on connecting to the right people, not all of you. I will just keep on trying by keep spreading the truth.

Do you have any idea what Quanfa translates to? It means Fist Method. Once it left China it could very likely have had a belt system applied to it. And I believe once it hit Japan it becomes Kenpo

 

[Xue Sheng]

As I said, agenda or motivation is irrelevant to how my contents are logically sound & properly referenced. Those things make the contents legitimate. Whether I have agenda or not is irrelevant to the quality of the contents. You are plainly committing Ad hominem fallacy.

Also, there's no agenda. As for my motivations, I don't want injustice; that's my motivation.

Wait..." if you have an agenda or not its irrelevant"..... nope that is not correct either. An agenda or a bias can jade everything one does and it most certainly does not make it easy for others to take anything you are putting forth seriously.

 

[Steven Lee]

Yeah, Korean Gwonbeop started from Chinese Quan Fa. Anyway, if that didn't have Dan system, Oyama probably learned Korean Gwonbeop.

The contents are about logic & references. Whether I have agenda or not doesn't change the logic & the references I use. Hence, happy coincidence in the correct conclusions is irrelevant. The bias should be in the logic, not in the emotion of the arguer. My emotions favor certain conclusions; I have hatred against Japan. However, there is no bias in the logic I use nor in the references I quote. Bias has to be in the logic, not in the emotion. Whatever I'm feeling, it is not affecting the contents.

What you are wishing is an Ad hominem fallacy. "fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument".

That's exactly what is happening by you whining agenda, motivation, bias, whatever. There's no agenda nor bias in my logic I use. No bias in my references nor my inferences concluding the facts.

This thread is done. I hope I connected to enough objective people & historians.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Also, whether there's motivation & agenda or not, the contents are still legitimate logically.

This is not true because at that point you are pushing your perception of things. You get random information and shape it to fit your bias. Not sure where you are living but this was an old trick that's been played over and over in U.S. society. It's often done to keep less fortunate people from having equal opportunities.

Here's an example.
Statement #1: Group A is poor. This is the fact.
Statement #2: Group A is poor because they are stupid. This is bais because it thinks less of group A

Group A is poor is true in both statements. But the reason why Group A is not a fact. It is the perception built by how someone sees another group.

Statement #1: Koreans do breaking. This is the fact
Statement #2: Koreans did breaking before the Japanese. And I hate everything that Japanese do and I won't be associated with anything Japanese.

Your hate is the bias. So because of that bias, Everything you like must come from Korea, even if it actually comes from Japan. So in your world Japanese will never be the first to create something you like. Because that's something you can never personally accept.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I hope I connected to enough objective people & historians.

Nope. no connection made.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Yeah, Korean Gwonbeop started from Chinese Quan Fa. Anyway, if that didn't have Dan system, Oyama probably learned Korean Gwonbeop.

The contents are about logic & references. Whether I have agenda or not doesn't change the logic & the references I use. Hence, happy coincidence in the correct conclusions is irrelevant. The bias should be in the logic, not in the emotion of the arguer. My emotions favor certain conclusions; I have hatred against Japan. However, there is no bias in the logic I use nor in the references I quote. Bias has to be in the logic, not in the emotion. Whatever I'm feeling, it is not affecting the contents.

What you are wishing is an Ad hominem fallacy. "fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument".

That's exactly what is happening by you whining agenda, motivation, bias, whatever. There's no agenda nor bias in my logic I use. No bias in my references nor my inferences concluding the facts.

This thread is done. I hope I connected to enough objective people & historians.

I doubt the thread is done and there is no Ad hominem on my part. What I am stating is based on what you have said. And you are not looking for discussion, you are looking for agreement with your position and anything less is simply not going to work for you. And if you are truly interested in finding historians, might I suggest approaching those people that study these things who are actual historians in universities and not looking for them on martial arts sights. Although we have had a few here over the years who had a pretty darn good grasp on the history of things.

Now I cannot help you in finding any historians looking into the history of Taekwondo and its origin, but I imagine there may be a few in Universities in Korea. However I would avoid approaching them wth the "Happy Coincidence" bit. it is a great way to get them to not take you seriously


However I am done...have a nice day

 

[Flying Crane]

We will be making fun of this thread for a long time to come.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Mongolian culture seems to have influenced ancient Korea so a lot of what is being said about Korea vs Japan being first is just incorrect.

If you look at the rule of the Mongolian empire you can see where these influences start to play a role.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Mongolian culture seems to have influenced ancient Korea so a lot of what is being said about Korea vs Japan being first is just incorrect.

If you look at the rule of the Mongolian empire you can see where these influences start to play a role.

Not the Mongol Bao

interestingly enough Mongolian, and Korean, possibly Japanese are in the same language family. And Chinese is not part of that language family.........

 

[punisher73]

Not sure if I was the one who brought up Iron Palm first.

So, Mas Oyama probably learned Korean Gwonbeop then. That explains how Mas Oyama was able to describe Chosun(Korean)-Gwonbeop in detail in his book "1 million's Karate".

Whether I have bias or not should be proven in terms of logic & fallacy, not by me hating or favoring whatever. Logically can conclude the correct conclusion even with hatred against opponent & while favoring that conclusion. Happy coincidence is a valid concept.

Like I said, I'm just going to spread the truth & facts, hoping to connect to objective people & historians (scholars). If anyone takes what I say seriously, he would know I make sense. I'm looking for unbiased historians who agree me. And I will not stop nor move on. I'll keep trying.

I have found NO documented evidence of Mas Oyama learning "Gwonbeop" as some older Korean martial art. By his own admission and historical records, Oyama earned a 2nd degree blackbelt in Japanese karate at the age of 18 when he was living in Japan. He also trained Chinese Kempo when he was younger. Also, to reiterate.."Gwonbeop" is from a chinese military manual that the Koreans used, it is NOT a korean martial art. It is the korean rendition of "quanfa", or in other words what most people would call "kung fu". So, if he said he learned "gwonbeop" he would be saying that he learned kung fu, which has been established.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

My research is fine. There are tons of references from scholarly sources & news organization sources that weren't damaged in reputation. Those are typical reputable sources by academic standards. There's no bias. No one is naming any specific fallacy. You wish there was a bias. Just because I favor some conclusion doesn't mean I weighed in anything unfairly. Just because I have a hatred doesn't mean I weighed in anything unfairly.

Like I said, I'm just going to spread the truth & facts, hoping to connect to objective people & historians (scholars). Also, accusation doesn't do anything in reality. I can say "distortion & denial VS proofs". Did that do anything for you? That's what you are doing to me. Except that I'm the right one with actual backed up evidences. Also, I'm not the one with goals & agenda (I reject all such people).

I've actually named more than one fallacy and logical errors in prior interchanges. You continue to commit the same fallacies and errors.

 

[Steven Lee]

You people are the one with agenda, fallacies, bias against me and Korea. All you whine is my motivations which doesn't change the quality of my works. Attacking my motivations is an Ad hominem fallacy. "fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument". Whether I have motivations or not, my writing still consists of references & inferences. Either there's bias in my writing or not. Bias in emotion doesn't change that.

You have to pinpoint specific bias what conclusion is possible from what references while I'm avoiding that conclusion. If you cannot say "these conclusions are possible from these references, but your bias is avoiding these conclusions and only going for that conclusion", I don't have bias.

 

[Dirty Dog]

You people are the one with agenda, fallacies, bias against me and Korea.

Not at all. People simply think it's more likely the founders told the truth, when they said their training was shotokan and kung fu. Not that, as you claim, they were all part of some Great Conspiracy.

All you whine is my motivations which doesn't change the quality of my works.

No, it does not. Your "work" (quotes required, for obvious reasons) is utter nonsense, and would remain utter nonsense even if people were not laughing at you.

Attacking my motivations is an Ad hominem fallacy.

Utter nonsense. People have pointed out why your nonsense is, in fact, nonsense, and all you do is... keep repeating nonsense.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You people are the one with agenda, fallacies, bias against me and Korea. All you whine is my motivations which doesn't change the quality of my works. Attacking my motivations is an Ad hominem fallacy. "fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument". Whether I have motivations or not, my writing still consists of references & inferences. Either there's bias in my writing or not. Bias in emotion doesn't change that.

You have to pinpoint specific bias what conclusion is possible from what references while I'm avoiding that conclusion. If you cannot say "these conclusions are possible from these references, but your bias is avoiding these conclusions and only going for that conclusion", I don't have bias.

Actually, several of us have pointed out that your bias is evident in your conclusions. That's a discussion of the topic, not an ad hominem argument.

 

[Steven Lee]

What founders are you talking about? We are not talking Taekwondo. In today's Korea, Breaking/Tameshiwari is often done by Taekwondo, Kooksundo (Korean Taoist Qigong), Charyuk/Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu, Taekkyeon, Gyeoksul, etc. Also, even for Taekwondo, most references are not the direct speaking from founders but secondary references made by other people not the founders. As for Breaking/Tameshiwari, there are many historical records on Breaking/Tameshiwari whether talking Tameshiwari "founders" or whatever.

Why is my work nonsense? Cause you don't want to believe it? Or cause my scholarly sources are not scholarly? Or cause my conclusions don't necessarily follow from the references? This is a matter of logic.

Attacking the person instead of his writings is an Ad hominem fallacy. Attacking my motivations & "agenda" is the definition of Ad hominem fallacy.

 

[Steven Lee]

Attacking my motivations & agenda is the definition of Ad hominem fallacy. Lots of guys specifically talked about my motivations & agenda. That's a fallacy.

What kind of bias and fallacy is in my conclusions? What other conclusions are possible from the given references? You have to be specific like "these conclusions are also possible but your bias is not considering these conclusions but only considering that conclusion". Or, I don't have bias in my conclusions.

Simply put, what is the conclusion that is acceptable for you? Without ignoring my references? What are the possible conclusions (other than mine) without ignoring my references? Why is that possible without ignoring my references? Why is that conclusion acceptable for you?

 

[Dirty Dog]

What founders are you talking about?

The founders of TKD. The founders of Kumdo. The founder of TSD. The founders of pretty much every Korean martial art being taught today. Because taekyon and every other art went bye bye while the Japanese ruled Korea. There is zero direct connection between the Korean martial arts of today, and those lost. The Japanese did a very thorough job of suppressing them, and nothing remains. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Buppkiss. The people who teach Korean martial arts today know this, and admit this.
Is there a cultural link? Sure, you can reasonably claim that, since it's pretty nebulous and can be said about pretty much anything. But there is zero evidence of any direct connection between Korean martial arts today, and historical Korean arts. There is nothing left of them except their names.

Why is my work nonsense?

Because self-delusions arising out of racism are not "work", especially when they are, according to the people who actually founded and teach the arts, utter nonsense.

Because when the Mass Oyama says "I teach Karate" it's pretty stupid for you to claim he's lying.
When the founders of the various Kwan say "I studied Shotokan/Kung Fu" it's pretty stupid for you to claim they're all lying.

Attacking the person instead of his writings is an Ad hominem fallacy. Attacking my motivations & "agenda" is the definition of Ad hominem fallacy.

Nobody has attacked you. They've said, quite clearly (and repeatedly) that your words and your claims are nonsense. And they've shown specific examples of WHY they're nonsense. For example, your ridiculous claim that Oyama taught kwonbop, when he himself never once said that.

 

[Steven Lee]

1. In today's Korea, Breaking/Tameshiwari is often done by Taekwondo, Kooksundo (Korean Taoist Qigong), Charyuk/Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu, Taekkyeon, Gyeoksul, etc.

2. Taekwondo topic is long over no matter how much you wish to talk about it.

3. Facts about Taekwondo founders are not really from the founders directly talking but other people talking about the founders.

4. Some people specifically attacked my motivations & agenda.

5. My conclusions follow from my reputable sources. Not a nonsense. What other conclusions are possible without ignoring my references & sources?