Subak's real rules with physical evidences

[Gerry Seymour]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

Actually, what something looks like is pretty subjective.

 

[Steven Lee]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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