Subak's real rules with physical evidences

[Steven Lee]

Crying & demanding "perfect" proof or whining over the perception of "fact" is a clear sign of moving the goal post fallacy. All my proofs & conclusions (inferred directly from the evidences) are perfect enough, smooth enough, fact enough by the human world standard the same level as all historical facts in the world proven with reputable pictures & writings. For example, George Washington's picture proves what clothes he had. Historical writings that he was the first president of America proves the fact that he was the first president. That's 100% human world certainty. Don't have to be sure more than that.

 

[Gnarlie]

Crying & demanding "perfect" proof or whining over the perception of "fact" is a clear sign of moving the goal post fallacy. All my proofs & conclusions (inferred directly from the evidences) are perfect enough, smooth enough, fact enough by the human world standard the same level as all historical facts in the world proven with reputable pictures & writings.

You are ignoring counter evidence. That's a weakness.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[pdg]

Crying & demanding "perfect" proof or whining over the perception of "fact" is a clear sign of moving the goal post fallacy. All my proofs & conclusions (inferred directly from the evidences) are perfect enough, smooth enough, fact enough by the human world standard the same level as all historical facts in the world proven with reputable pictures & writings. For example, George Washington's picture proves what clothes he had. Historical writings that he was the first president of America proves the fact that he was the first president. That's 100% human world certainty. Don't have to be sure more than that.

I'm not crying.

I'm not demanding perfect proof.

I'm not whining over perception of fact.


You stated (and restated) that your evidence was perfect, and that your interpretation represented fact.

The onus is on you to prove it.


As for moving goalposts - you are now saying "perfect enough" and "fact enough".

There is no such thing as "perfect enough" nor "fact enough". The terms are absolutes - it's either perfect or it isn't. It's either fact or it isn't.

 

[Steven Lee]

No one provided any counter evidence contradicting my Gyuksul proofs, Subak rule proofs, Breaking's origin proofs in any of those 3 threads. Do provide some reference, then we will examine whether the source is reputable & whether the reference is not made up with imagination. (Where did you hear that? That's a question to be asked.)

 

[Steven Lee]

Saying perfect enough, fact enough, these are figure of speeches. Also, you were claiming there's no way to identify fact. So I was teaching you that Academia's facts don't have to be the perfect God's truth. It just has to be fact enough, perfect enough in academic standards.

The level of researches I do, the way I present proofs & inferred conclusions, the way my opponent is supposed to present counter evidences, these are all standard academic system. All historians build up historical facts using the same way I do, including the use of historic pictures.

 

[pdg]

George Washington's picture proves what clothes he had.

It proves what clothes he was wearing at the time of the picture.

It doesn't prove that those were his only clothes, whether he wore that style of clothing every day or whether he borrowed those clothes for the purposes of the picture.

As for pictures that predate photography - it's very well known that artists didn't always draw or paint (or sculpt or carve) exactly what was in front of them.

Creating that sort of work takes time, so you do a quick sketch, make notes and fill in details yourself.

And oftentimes, the artist would simply draw what he was told to.


Also, which president came first is recent enough and recorded in enough sources to be verified many times over.

A single document (that for all you know may well have been written to order) is not in itself evidence of anything other than the fact it was written.

 

[pdg]

Saying perfect enough, fact enough, these are figure of speeches. Also, you were claiming there's no way to identify fact. So I was teaching you that Academia's facts don't have to be the perfect God's truth. It just has to be fact enough, perfect enough in academic standards.

Stop keeping on about God - the concept offends me.

And your presentation of 'fact' does not follow academic protocol.

 

[Steven Lee]

The point stands. (Yeah, if George Washington wants to prove he had which other clothes, he has to show it.) If you want to claim something existed, you are the one who has to prove it. As for me, I proved Subak had frontal straight slap, frontal Knife Hand strike (there are many Subak pictures), punch with Subak pictures & writings from reputable sources. I also proved how Gyuksul comes from Subak & Gwonbub. I also proved how Japanese Karate Breaking/Tameshiwari has Korean origin. They learned the striking technique & the game concept from Korea.

Yeah, my presentation of conclusion follows academic system. I showed reputable proofs from reputable sources. My conclusion inferred directly from the reputable proofs including historic pictures just like historians do. And so far, there's no counter evidence provided against any of my 3 threads.

 

[pdg]

Yeah, my presentation of conclusion follows academic system. I showed reputable proofs from reputable sources. My conclusion inferred directly from the reputable proofs including historic pictures just like historians do. And so far, there's no counter evidence provided against any of my 3 threads.

No, your presentation was actually "look at me being right, agree right now".

That's not academic protocol, that's narcissism.

You have no basis to claim that your sources are reputable.

A few have disagreed with your conclusions and have cited the reasons for disagreement. Your response was to accuse them (and their sources) of lying. That's not how historians conduct themselves.


Have you, in any way or in any place, ever had anyone specifically agree with your findings?

 

[Martial D]

The point stands. (Yeah, if George Washington wants to prove he had which other clothes, he has to show it.) If you want to claim something existed, you are the one who has to prove it. As for me, I proved Subak had frontal straight slap, frontal Knife Hand strike (there are many Subak pictures), punch with Subak pictures & writings from reputable sources. I also proved how Gyuksul comes from Subak & Gwonbub. I also proved how Japanese Karate Breaking/Tameshiwari has Korean origin. They learned the striking technique & the game concept from Korea.

Yeah, my presentation of conclusion follows academic system. I showed reputable proofs from reputable sources. My conclusion inferred directly from the reputable proofs including historic pictures just like historians do. And so far, there's no counter evidence provided against any of my 3 threads.

It's been a minute since we had anyone here as entertaining as you. Keep up the good work, and do not let insignificant things like facts or evidence slow you down good sir!

 

[Steven Lee]

Like I said, you are quibbling. I don't need to deal with quibbles. I showed reputable proofs; I showed conclusion. My thread post 1 wasn't even that long. Showing proofs & conclusion are a standard academic system. Smooth enough, perfect enough, fact enough when there is no counter evidence nor logical necessities against it.

My sources are reputable newspapers, reputable archaeological drawings, reputable history books, etc. These are all reputable types of sources approved by academia commonly. Also, all the sources I have shown are known to be decent & respectable to scholars & the people experienced in such history fields. Now you are quibbling over "prove your sources are reputable". They are reputable newspapers, history books, ancient drawings, medieval drawings. Not tabloid stuff. Real respectable stuffs. "Pictures cannot be used as a proof" doesn't mean ****. Pictures are commonly used as proofs in history. Everything I do is done the same way in history, the standard way.

Incredulity fallacy. Just because you pretend you don't understand proofs & facts don't mean they are not proofs & facts. All writings & pictures I have shown are indeed proofs. Proofs conclude facts. This is a standard academic system, in which you are committing the moving the goal post fallacy.

I'm really tired of these people. I have shown enough, including Subak's frontal straight slap (fingers curl to front), Subak's punch, Subak's frontal Knife Hand strike. I also showed Gyuksul's boxing-like Subak history & visible techniques similar to Korean Gwonbub. I also showed Breaking's circus origin including its powerful hitting techniques. I really hope I could touch some objective people & scholars.

 

[Buka]

 

[pdg]

Newspapers (especially in non democratic regimes) print what they know will please the administration, sometimes that's true, other times not so much.

Archeological drawings are reinterpreted all the time.

History books are proved wrong and amended all the time as well.

 

[Steven Lee]

Yeah, you are moving the goal post fallacy. Newspapers are commonly used as proofs in academia, especially respectable newspapers. All my archaeological drawings look obvious enough. Even Subak's frontal slap picture by mustache man looks either straight frontal slap or frontal knife hand strike. (Among the motions available in Subak, the picture wouldn't be something else than those 2. The fingers curl to front, so I'm saying it's a frontal slap.) Either way, it's a frontal strike. History books are commonly used as proofs. If you wish something to be untrue, then you have to prove it. Otherwise, by default, all my reputable sources speak the truth & they are saying the same thing (not by coincidence).

 

[Tez3]

Pictures are a legitimate proof.

No they aren't.

Pictures are used as proofs commonly in history & archaeology just as much as writings.

Please stop using 'proofs' the correct term is simply proof.

I don't need to deal with quibbles

And quite frankly we don't need to deal with your nonsense and nonsense it is indeed. You need to have a quiet word with yourself. ditch the ego, the indignation and the whining. if you believe something to be true post up why you think it so in a properly academic way for our perusal and approbation/disagreement. You talk of scholars, yet are most disturbingly not scholarly yourself.

The time has come,' the Walrus said,
To talk of many things:
Of shoes — and ships — and sealing-wax —
Of cabbages — and kings —
And why the sea is boiling hot —
And whether pigs have wings.'

 

[Buka]

But to give the devil his due, that horse could be Korean.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Somehow, my links are not working. When I click on them, they add a bunch of letters after the file extension.

http://cafefiles.naver.net/data8/2005/5/21/49/%BC%F6%B9%DA%C8%F1_1.jpg

This picture's left guy looks like frontal slap. (The arm is fully extended. It's a frontal strike, either with palm slap or with Knife Hand. Frontal Knife Hand strike or a frontal slap. And it looks more like a frontal slap.) Also, Subak had punch like many reputable sources I quoted. Also, Breaking was self-created as a circus with trial & error (& wrestling's power motion knowhow, how to put in body momentum hard, how to swing arm hard).

Pictures are a legitimate proof. In specific sports, there are few motions & moves that can look like certain pictures. If you rule out the motions not in the sports, the pictures look like specific motions like Subak's frontal slap or Gwonbub's pictures or Kyuksul pictures.

In Gwonbub's case, it was not only the similarities in pictures to Taekwondo but also the identical name that led me to investigate Gwonbub's connection to Taekwondo.

All my proofs & inferences are smooth enough & impeccable. When a claim is supported by evidences, if there is no logical necessity or proof against it, it is good enough & smooth enough. You guys are just quibbling.

You still aren't asking yourself the most important questions about your evidence: what counter-evidence can I find, and what else could my evidence mean? Until you actually ask and investigate the answers to those two questions, all you can expect is confirmation bias.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Pictures are a legitimate proof what scene, motions, techniques existed in what era. Pictures are a legitimate proof which sport looks similar to what other sport, especially if the name of the sport is the same. Subak's ancient pictures prove what motions, techniques ancient Subak had. Muyedobotongji Gwonbub pictures prove that Taekwondo's Gwonbub part & Gyuksul look similar to Muyedobotongji textbook's Gwonbub. Comparison is easy especially if the motions are unique, it's easy to make connections. Pictures are used as proofs commonly in history & archaeology just as much as writings. That's a fact. Including caveman drawings. Using pictures as a proof is common in history & archaeology. Also, I have many proofs in both writings & pictures in many topics.

I have many writings for proofs in many topics. I also have many pictures for proofs in many topics. Pictures are commonly used as proofs in academia including history. There are a limited number of sports in a specific region; each sport has a limited number of motions; among the motions available, few motions can look like certain pictures. Process of elimination. Pictures are a proof cause the artist tries to imprint the real life scene into picture. Aside from that obvious logic, it's a fact that pictures are approved by Academia as proof.

I'm just hoping I could connect with many scholars & objective people. I'm presenting proofs & conclusions in the standard academic ways. Don't need to deal with quibbles & moving the goal post fallacy.

Drawn pictures - especially in the style used in most older sources (including yours) are approximations, and can often be interpreted multiple ways. You are only interested in interpreting them to support your claim, and haven't really considered whether they might show something entirely different.

Your bias is obvious.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No, I only need to deal with counter evidence or logical necessity. Anything else doesn't do anything. If there is nothing else, my data, proofs, conclusions, inferences are perfect. Either there is counter logic & counter evidence, or there isn't, in which case my conclusions are the facts. I don't have to deal with quibbles that are neither counter evidence provided nor counter logic (logical necessity why something is impossible) presented.

Reputable evidences say Subak had punch, so Subak had punch. Reputable picture says Subak had frontal slap (& also frontal Knife Hand strike for some pictures), so Subak had frontal slap. Reputable evidences say Subyuk had frontal slap, so it adds to Subak's frontal slap possibility. Reputable evidences say that Breaking is power circus, so Breaking isn't from martial art. Reputable pictures of the same name (Gwonbub) looks similar to many sports today, so there's a connection when that specific name was mentioned in history of Taekwondo. Also, Kyuksul looks similar to Korean Gwonbub. I have reputable evidences in many topics; if there is no counter evidence nor counter logic, my conclusions are automatically the facts.

Moving the goal post fallacy means "you have to prove this much to qualify as a proof". Like saying ancient or medieval reputable pictures can't be a proof. Like claiming I have to deal with your quibbles that are neither counter evidence nor counter logic. You people are the one moving the goal post fallacy. I'm providing all evidences to the standard level of history & archaeology.

You've chosen to ignore some quite logical counter-arguments and some easy evidence.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

For example, George Washington's picture proves what clothes he had.

Actually, if it's a drawing/painting, it doesn't. It would be quite easy for a painter or artist to draw him in any clothes they wish. It was done fairly regularly when mocking politicians.