Judo style argumentation.

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
duszek
Posts: 2356
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Judo style argumentation.

Post by duszek »

Some people like to fight with words and other people prefer to avoid them.

If we ignore an attacker the provocation or insult stay in the air unanswered.

Another option could be to answer in a defensive way, letting the attacker burn with wasted energy, and to redirect the attacks in a different direction.
I would compare this defense to judo.

I have no examples yet, I can only offer the image of a rhino chasing a butterfly and breaking his horn on a rock.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Judo style argumentation.

Post by Walker »

I know what you mean, duszek. The classic matchup is boxer vs grappler. With his wrestling perspective, Ken Kesey sided with wrestlers in his great novel, Sometimes A Great Notion. But of course boxers have their advantages, one of which is the ability to disorient an opponent, which is what I think happened to Rousey yesterday.

Rousey should have used her world champion judo skills against Holmes. No doubt she tried her best. Holmes’ precision striking, counterpunching and great footwork neutralized Rousey's judo. Weirdly enough, Rousey accurately predicted Holmes’ fight strategy.

Their “combat with rules” provided a dose of humility and a reality check for the formidable Warrior who publicly declared that she could defeat Floyd Mayweather.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Judo style argumentation.

Post by HexHammer »

The cure is simple, say intelligent things, and the attack shall be deflected easily. But if one can't say intelligent things, one shall be mauled and rubbed in the dirt.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Judo style argumentation.

Post by Walker »

HexHammer wrote:The cure is simple, say intelligent things, and the attack shall be deflected easily. But if one can't say intelligent things, one shall be mauled and rubbed in the dirt.
Hey there HexHammer.

Speaking of ground and pound, which sounds like ground round, which is what Lions eat in captivity:

In the sport of wrestling, to give your back to the earth is to surrender. Wrestlers don’t want to go there.

I’ve noticed that MMA fighters have created a significant advantage for themselves with the earth to their backs, one that immediately took dominance with the Gracie reign.

MMA fighters turned the surrender position into a strength. Put Gracie on his back and in time he will break an arm that is not his own. That’s also a signature move of Rousey, often in less time than Gracie.

However, take the surrender position into a street fight and the natural physical movements, nature's physics of form following function, indicates a kick in the head, likely a blindside, which in real life means loss, and only the degree of loss varies.

There’s also another philosophy of relationship. That of handing the victory to the other at the outset, skipping the drama of battle, and getting on with the discussion.

Though that philosophy is not bloodsport, neither does it dim the fire that forges.

“But they sicken of the calm, who knew the storm.” - D. Parker
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Judo style argumentation.

Post by HexHammer »

Walker wrote:bla bla ..and bla
You see, the problem in these philosophy forums around the internet, very very stupid people are allowed to spew their stupidities forever more, because the admin and the mods usually are equally as stupid, neither has to produce a usable result, nor can they have their theories tested to see if they hold water, no, everything can be pure nonsense and babble.

What 99.999% of all these so called "philosophers" really want, is a cozy chat, and promote themselves and to feel self important, and naively think they get wiser reading all this endless nonsense and babble. Because neither have read science articles, at best some has read RT and SRT, but dunno really how to put it to use in the real world.

So would any of these cozy chatters do well in a big business? No ofc not, they are too stupid and ignorant of what to do and how to prioritize. They don't have any relevant knowledge, so they can never build bridges, do surgery, fly an airplane, have any strategical or tactical knowledge, they lack knowledge of policy, etc etc, so in essence they are utterly useless and you just can't handle this simple truth!
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Judo style argumentation.

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

HexHammer wrote:
Walker wrote:bla bla ..and bla
You see, the problem in these philosophy forums around the internet, very very stupid people are allowed to spew their stupidities forever more, because the admin and the mods usually are equally as stupid, neither has to produce a usable result, nor can they have their theories tested to see if they hold water, no, everything can be pure nonsense and babble.

What 99.999% of all these so called "philosophers" really want, is a cozy chat, and promote themselves and to feel self important, and naively think they get wiser reading all this endless nonsense and babble. Because neither have read science articles, at best some has read RT and SRT, but dunno really how to put it to use in the real world.

So would any of these cozy chatters do well in a big business? No ofc not, they are too stupid and ignorant of what to do and how to prioritize. They don't have any relevant knowledge, so they can never build bridges, do surgery, fly an airplane, have any strategical or tactical knowledge, they lack knowledge of policy, etc etc, so in essence they are utterly useless and you just can't handle this simple truth!
What's your excuse :lol:

PhilX
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Judo style argumentation.

Post by Walker »

HexHammer wrote:
Walker wrote:bla bla ..and bla
You see, the problem in these philosophy forums around the internet, very very stupid people are allowed to spew their stupidities forever more, because the admin and the mods usually are equally as stupid, neither has to produce a usable result, nor can they have their theories tested to see if they hold water, no, everything can be pure nonsense and babble.

What 99.999% of all these so called "philosophers" really want, is a cozy chat, and promote themselves and to feel self important, and naively think they get wiser reading all this endless nonsense and babble. Because neither have read science articles, at best some has read RT and SRT, but dunno really how to put it to use in the real world.

So would any of these cozy chatters do well in a big business? No ofc not, they are too stupid and ignorant of what to do and how to prioritize. They don't have any relevant knowledge, so they can never build bridges, do surgery, fly an airplane, have any strategical or tactical knowledge, they lack knowledge of policy, etc etc, so in essence they are utterly useless and you just can't handle this simple truth!
Ahhhh. The Blaaa.

Well that’s food for thought.

Let’s take it as a premise. Let’s say it’s true. How could it be true?

I think it lies in the schism of understanding the nature of University, and education.

In principle, scholars attend University.

In reality, the scholars are still there, though to exist within the remunerated scholoarly life requires, from what I’ve heard, navigating some kind of a weird, closed -world of rules and politics.

I think that the scholars are vastly outnumbered in Universities by job seekers and wanderers. University has been promised as the path to riches and more importantly, to constructively easing the suffering in the world by becoming a health care worker, engineer, etc.

The schism is, somehow job seekers have taken on the role of scholars, whereas in principle, to be a scholar requires a deep love and affinity for being schooled, and in turn, schooling.

Job seekers, not so much that. They want the knowledge and social contacts that will get them a job in order to participate in the dynamo of progress which is moving forward, always forward. That is, unless the job seeker goes into government, in which case the principle of the job will be to govern the forward progress of the dynamo. To throttle the throttle, so to speak, so that things don’t go so fast.

This throttle, working as the U.S. visa program for skilled workers, has proven to be overly effective in it's purpose.

I say that for a philosophy forum there is room for inductive reasoning. Everyone has experiences, everyone can attempt to form general principles from their particular experiences and observations, and others can provide their assessments of the principles.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Judo style argumentation.

Post by HexHammer »

Philosophy Explorer wrote:What's your excuse :lol:

PhilX
I have proven that I'm, intelligent, you can never prove that you are intelligent, because you can't prove what you in the first place don't have. :wink:
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Judo style argumentation.

Post by HexHammer »

Walker wrote:I think it lies in the schism of understanding the nature of University, and education.

In principle, scholars attend University.

In reality, the scholars are still there, though to exist within the remunerated scholoarly life requires, from what I’ve heard, navigating some kind of a weird, closed -world of rules and politics.

I think that the scholars are vastly outnumbered in Universities by job seekers and wanderers. University has been promised as the path to riches and more importantly, to constructively easing the suffering in the world by becoming a health care worker, engineer, etc.

The schism is, somehow job seekers have taken on the role of scholars, whereas in principle, to be a scholar requires a deep love and affinity for being schooled, and in turn, schooling.

Job seekers, not so much that. They want the knowledge and social contacts that will get them a job in order to participate in the dynamo of progress which is moving forward, always forward. That is, unless the job seeker goes into government, in which case the principle of the job will be to govern the forward progress of the dynamo. To throttle the throttle, so to speak, so that things don’t go so fast.

This throttle, working as the U.S. visa program for skilled workers, has proven to be overly effective in it's purpose.

I say that for a philosophy forum there is room for inductive reasoning. Everyone has experiences, everyone can attempt to form general principles from their particular experiences and observations, and others can provide their assessments of the principles.
Long talkative post about excatly nothing, a farteched point that isn't really a useful point.

The only thing you really present here, is wishful thinking, not solid facts about the usefulness of philosophy.

You have feeble reasoning skills.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Judo style argumentation.

Post by Walker »

HexHammer wrote:
Walker wrote:I think it lies in the schism of understanding the nature of University, and education.

In principle, scholars attend University.

In reality, the scholars are still there, though to exist within the remunerated scholoarly life requires, from what I’ve heard, navigating some kind of a weird, closed -world of rules and politics.

I think that the scholars are vastly outnumbered in Universities by job seekers and wanderers. University has been promised as the path to riches and more importantly, to constructively easing the suffering in the world by becoming a health care worker, engineer, etc.

The schism is, somehow job seekers have taken on the role of scholars, whereas in principle, to be a scholar requires a deep love and affinity for being schooled, and in turn, schooling.

Job seekers, not so much that. They want the knowledge and social contacts that will get them a job in order to participate in the dynamo of progress which is moving forward, always forward. That is, unless the job seeker goes into government, in which case the principle of the job will be to govern the forward progress of the dynamo. To throttle the throttle, so to speak, so that things don’t go so fast.

This throttle, working as the U.S. visa program for skilled workers, has proven to be overly effective in it's purpose.

I say that for a philosophy forum there is room for inductive reasoning. Everyone has experiences, everyone can attempt to form general principles from their particular experiences and observations, and others can provide their assessments of the principles.
Long talkative post about excatly nothing, a farteched point that isn't really a useful point.

The only thing you really present here, is wishful thinking, not solid facts about the usefulness of philosophy.

You have feeble reasoning skills.
I thought, why not.

A man who sticks to the purpose. I like that.
The usefulness of the Philosophy of Language.

Once again you send me to the google, sounds like gulag.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_language

Since philosophy of language is analysis of what it is
Namely, language is what it is
And since I provided what it is
Language
The connection of my words to the philosophy of language is your call
or rather
your philosophical interpretation of … what it is.

In other words
what I wrote is the it
that what it is
is.

Philosophy of Language
is the philosopher’s analysis
of what it is.

The Philosophy of Language is conducted of the past tense,
All Creation is present tense only.

Must I be both Creator and Philosopher
One split into two as to join both ends of the journey
And why, why say I
Is it merely to fill the bottomless belly
Of the wandering mind?
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Judo style argumentation.

Post by HexHammer »

Walker wrote:bla ..bla ..bla
Let's try again, what kind of job does one such as you have? You make completely random and delusional conclusions.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Judo style argumentation.

Post by Walker »

HexHammer wrote:
Walker wrote:bla ..bla ..bla
Let's try again, what kind of job does one such as you have? You make completely random and delusional conclusions.
Hammer. Hammer man. My man Hammer.

None of your fucking business.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Judo style argumentation.

Post by HexHammer »

Walker wrote:
HexHammer wrote:
Walker wrote:bla ..bla ..bla
Let's try again, what kind of job does one such as you have? You make completely random and delusional conclusions.
Hammer. Hammer man. My man Hammer.

None of your fucking business.
Well that's just proves my point, either you a loser job, or none, because you simply lacks the basic mental aptitude to have 1.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Judo style argumentation.

Post by Arising_uk »

HexHammer wrote:...
The only thing you really present here, is wishful thinking, not solid facts about the usefulness of philosophy.

...
You appear to have missed the news in the PN articles section so here you go,

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... s-literacy

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educa ... 78958.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33464258
Post Reply