Thread: Equitable?
View Single Post
Old 03-31-2005, 07:14 PM   #363
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
Re: Equitable?

Brion Toss wrote:
From this I hope it is fair to conclude that Mike finds "getting an impression" is incompatible with logic in debate. I believe that telling people what impression one is getting can be of great value in a debate, and does not preclude logical discourse.
OK. Using those criteria then... I conclude you are a witling, Brion. Do you now see the fallacy of allowing those sorts of comments into logical debate?
[snip some comments extraneous to martial arts functions] But even if we consider Aikido purely as a martial art, it could be argued that being relaxed and happy will lead to more productive classes for everyone. In the current thread, I believe that unfair treatment of anyone detracts from the quality, the actual, technical, as-implemented-in-a-parking-lot quality of any martial art. Now that of course depends on how one defines "quality"; in my view, there's not much point in being competent but unhappy, especially if there's a chance that I can be both competent and happy. Mike might find happiness in different places than I. If so, we will practice in different dojos. By my lights, I would be guilty of an unfocused study of martial arts if I left out some of the things that Mike considers "extraneous."
Sure, Brion... you first of all miss the point of why O-Sensei did not allow his students to walk on his right side, his sword-hand side, if you think martial arts was not his focus. Secondly, you have interpreted "relaxed" from the English sense and don't seem to understand that it just means "not stiff", not "unconcerned with the world around us".
Mike writes, "...the ones who aren't really serious will do their best to discuss any issue but the one which they aren't very knowledgeable in, i.e., martial arts. It's how people are."
People, serious or not, will tend to write about the things they are knowledgeable in, or interested in, or intrigued by, or curious about.
Including Hollywood types commenting on medicine, dieting, politics, how to live a full life, etc. "Intrigued" is indeed the operative word, I think. But it's worthy of debate, Brion. Debate, as long as it's civil, brings out points of discussion.
Brion thinking about any violence on earth wrote:
I compared them with some of my own. I anticipate being taken outside and knocked flat. I doubt that I will be able to distinguish the person administering the knocking, who will be "someone in real martial arts", from a vicious thug.
In other words, you don't really understand violence and death, Brion, you equate any talk of violence as being far removed from "reality" as you see it in the upper Northwest? It's a talking point to you, isn't it? In other words, wouldn't you say that actual fighting seems thuggish and foreign to you? Think about O-Sensei and his not letting a student get between him and his sword arm... do you think he was disdainful of thugs or was he prepared to deal with them as a reality?
So I guess I am calling for equal treatment, i.e. the right to type fairly mild-seeming opinions -- or even antagonizing ones -- on the Internet without fearing that someone might threaten me with physical violence on me because of it.
I think it's a GOOD thing that you're willing to debate, argue, or even (if it's important enough) FIGHT for a point you believe in, Brion. I'm encouraging you, not trying to stifle your comments. People who call names like "sexist", "racist", "chauvinist", etc., are the people trying to stifle discussion, don't you think? Do you think that stifling discussion is what martial artists do or what someone defensive is trying to do?" Argue your points civilliy, as you seem to do, and fight when you must... but don't argue civilly and then run because ultimately you will lose all.
Nowhere in those posts did I find any call for "special treatment." I may be projecting, but in my own life I have sometimes thought that women were asking for special treatment, when they were really asking that I relinquish an artificial advantage.
Out of curiosity, what "artificial advantage" are you talking about? I hope that a survival necessity such as splitting of responsibilities is not what you're thinking of as the original artifice. If that's true then you are doom to the species, Brion.
Yes, some people of both genders, and all races and persuasions will ask for, and sometimes receive, special treatment per se, but I do not think that is what is going on here.
Mike goes on to complain that some women are, "... try[ing] to browbeat me into the mold of how you "get the impression" I should "feel"."
Nicely mixed metaphor there. But I believe "browbeating" (to depress or bear down with haughty, stern looks, or with arrogant speech; to abash or disconcert by impudence or abuse) is not what is going on here, either. More in the nature of principled disagreement in detail, no?
No. Attempting to stifle debate by stigmatizing opposing viewpoints is a well-known debate tactic from far antiquity, Brion. Remember that the next time you attempt to argue by name-calling and not addressing the issues, please.


Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote