mvir9

Well, since a number of these posts deal directly with me--assumptions and assessments--I will respond. I haven't been around for quite some time for several reasons--the primary of which is the hypocrisy I encountered from some (definitely not all) members here. 1. Yes, I was irritated by the responses I received about my ability in the martial arts. What happened to the idea that we should take PRIDE in our abilities? I've been doing karate for nearly thirty years, and when people do something for that long in their lives, it is incredible to me that they would be assumed as hacks. No, I didn't intend to boast (unearned confidence and bragging, by my definition). The subject came up for a reason (which I don't recall out of hand), and my ability was immediately dismissed due to--not individualistic reasons--but to collectivistic reasons...I'm "small," and small people just can't defend themselves with quality, I guess; I'm a "girl," and girls can't defend themselves with quality, I guess. Herein lies the hypocrisy. At that point, I just didn't feel the need--or desire--to defend my ability to all of you. 2. The ridiculous amount of ad hominem attacks here befuddle me to no end. What becomes the point? Is this truly civil discourse? I doubt that Aristotle would think so, and I know I don't think so. Again, another hypocrisy. 3. I'm just too damned busy now to banter constantly--vaguely reminding me of Aristophanes. Rather, I'm spending my time productively--and, yes, I'm damned proud of it. I wish most of you the best. And I hope that all of you (just as I do) will consistently seek to understand yourselves better, and to improve upon what you find. Virginia

Well, I'm happy to see that you all have psycho-analyzed me without having 1) met me; 2) seen my abilities in karate. I'm interested in this skill -- what shall we call it? Psychic presumption? Please, teach me. Is there some form of Zen-Buddhist mysticism involved? I've never been a fan, but this could turn me. On a more serious note -- When a person offers to prove their ability, but that proof is denied by the naysayers, then the naysayers are the ones denying reality. Not me. It often amuses me how some Objectivists are afraid of confidence that sits outside of their realm of comfort. I often wonder if they've even read Atlas Shrugged. I am the type of person that has no problem admitting to my weaknesses -- and I have no shame in admitting my strengths. Regrettably, that seems to be a problem around here. Luckily for you, I have enough confidence to know that I have better things to do than to sit here while you poke your thorns into me. I wish most of you well. P.S. Michael Newberry -- my admiration for you is unassailable; M.K. -- thank you for trying to stay on point.

Virginia, Much has been made of faking reality not being good for a mentally impaired child. Let's check that premise. I suspect that those who claim this have not had much experience with mentally incompetent people. Here is an experience that most everyone can have with lesser minds: dogs. There is a game I usually play with dogs. I get a bone or rag or something that is in his mouth and try to pull it away from him. I start faking being aggressive and make a great show of the effort I am employing. Then I let him win. The dog always loves it and can't get enough. I have also noticed that when another person is around who insists on winning all the time with the dog, he is not very popular with the dog for playing that game when I am around. The dog wants to play with me. And I have also noticed that the dog can be quite ferocious in real situations, so there is no impariment whatsoever by my teaching it to fake reality, whatever that means in that situation. On a deep level, I think the dog even knows I am letting it win, just like I think that on a deep level, Shaya knew he was no real baseball hero in the normal sense of the word. In other words, there is more than just competition going on at the time. There is also a recognition of intentions, approval of one another, and a whole set of dynamics at play. They are reality, too, right? Isn't ignoring them when judging what people (or dogs) are thinking a form of faking reality? That is why my position in this discussion has been when a person judges these stories and talks about what is important to him and what is in his mind, I take him at his word and have no criticism. He knows his own mental reality better than I or anyone else ever could. When he starts talking about what is in other people's minds and insinuates that this is evil or suboptimal in moral terms, but leaves out a big chunk of reality, I contest it. I have no problem with speculating about what is in other people's minds, but doing so while ignoring or brushing aside a part of reality leads to very inaccurate speculation. Michael Hello, Michael: As I stated earlier, my concern with the faking of reality in this situation is the very strong possibility that this will bite the little boy in the butt later (when he wants to play again and doesn't understand why he can't or why he is shunned). Even IF there were no negatives that manifested as a result of this faked reality, I still hold that the BETTER option would be to give the child a real sense of achievement by fostering his talents, because even mentally impaired individuals have talents. I have worked with several of these children in my children's school (brief experiences, but a great deal of fun). They are not hopeless -- they are humans with an impairment. And, each of these children have different impairments as well as different areas of talent (limited though these talents may be). Why delude them with a false sense of achievement when you can help them find the real thing? That is why I don't get this story, or its emotional significance. By the way, my dog doesn't appreciate being deluded either! LOL

Some excellent points. And, just so it is clear, we do NOT strike the knee while sparring. As you pointed out, there is too much of a risk of injury. Actually, all joints are considered off limits during sparring (so, elbows are included -- imagine striking a straightened elbow in the "wrong" direction . . . it would be severely damaged, if not broken). We also avoid the throat and eyes because they are too vulnerable to injury. We do include groin strikes, but the men are required to wear protection.

Just so everyone is aware -- as soon as Mikee questioned my veracity, I sent him a PM (which he referred to in one of his posts, when he turned down my invitation). This PM nicely stated that if he is ever around the Rockford, IL area, I would be happy to bring him to one of my classes so that he could watch me. I also explained that I understood that he felt he needed evidence to back up my statements. I DO understand his doubt, but I don't understand the outright condemnation when he has no evidence to the contrary. I have yet to be dishonest on this site, and I don't make a practice of dishonesty. I stand by everything I said. Regarding Mikee's outright condemnation: I'm not concerned. If he wishes to believe that greatness is unachievable by a female in the martial arts, that is fine. It is no skin off of my back. ;) And, I hold the invitation open to ANYONE who comes to the Rockford area. Just PM me, and I'll be happy to make arrangements. We can even enjoy a wonderful meal at a Japanese restaurant in Rockford that I frequent (great food and good company is always a welcome experience).

I understand this. But, my only concern was that it was disrespectful to me. Besides, he missed out on a great opportunity to spar a well-trained female opponent. The benefit for him would have been to spar someone with speed and flexibility as opposed to strength, which most male fighters rely upon (because most don't have much speed or flexibility). It reminds me a bit of the David and Goliath story -- secularized, of course. Brains vs. brawn. I am one of those who believes that brains can overcome brawn in almost every situation. Then again, maybe I'm simply an optimist.

I suggest the same for you. Have a wonderful day!

I've been attacked, and I had no problem defending myself. Thank you for your concern, however.

If there is a possibility of future achievement, then I understand your reasoning.

Okay, I found this fairly funny (honestly, not sarcastically). ;) I agree, that each individual would have a particular take on the situation. But, does that make the morality or lack thereof a subjective determination? And, the boys did give the mentally impaired child a "false win" when they allowed him to make a homerun that he never would have gotten on his own steam. That is why the comparison is being made. In Michael Newberry's story, he never falsified a win for Pete Sampras. Rather, he let him fail on his own steam, and this failure was a very big learning experience. Failure can often be a better teacher than success, but it is also how we, with dogged determination, reach success. The boy in the baseball story didn't reach true success, because his experience was faked. Imagine how good he felt with the home run, and the false sense of success it gave him. Now, imagine him the next time he comes across a baseball game with his dad . . . "Hey, dad, I would like to play again." His father will tell him no (knowing that a like experience isn't going to happen), or he will ask the new boys and be rejected. The little boy won't understand . . . "But, I'm GOOD at it, dad. I hit a homerun on my first try." Either the dad perpetuates the lie for the rest of the boy's life, or he tells him the truth and crushes him. If, on the other hand, the dad would have thought of something challenging for his son, like building a fort in the back yard, and helped him and encouraged him along the way, then when the boy finished the fort, he would have something true, something substantial, to take pride in -- a success. No false reality. No false sense of confidence. All of it would be real, and for him to hold close to his heart as long as he lived. *Edit -- I spelled Sampras' name wrong!

I completely agree with this. In my 27 years of experience in karate, I have found that the people (men and women alike) who like to "show off their moves" in social situations tend to be the people with the least ability. People would often harass me (growing up, anyway) to show them a move, or "how would you defend this?," but I found it horribly improper and I walked away. My response: "If you want to learn karate, go take a class." Luckily, as a mom with two kids, people don't ask me to "show my moves" as often now!

Isn't is possible that he just didn't want to hurt you? I have female friend who is about an inch taller than you, who is a black belt in something or other. At parties or with friends or wherever, she always wants to show how the other women how "safe" she is because she has a black belt. Almost invariably after a few seconds she's on the ground and it's just a squirm fest. That's not to say she hasn't landed any blows, she has, but neither those nor her cute moves are enough to stop me from grabbing her. The point being, he might also have babied you through the fight because he didn't want to hurt you. I don't baby my friend, but I don't certainly don't unload on her--she would get hurt, even though she knows how to fight. Well, in a ring anyway. I don't see her as inferior, but I know how badly I could hurt her, so I don't do anything but pin her down. That kind of kindness is disrespect. It is my body, and my risk to take. I'm no fool. I understand that injury is a possibility in karate -- of course it is a possibility. However, that is why I train so hard, and that is why I can and do often win the matches. I have not been hurt too often in karate, but when I have, the injuries have been mistakes on my own part (dropping my hands, throwing a strike off balance, etc.). If I fight properly, I won't get hurt -- even against a guy three times my size. Actually, my speed and flexibility tends to frighten off the men that I do spar. Have you ever broken a men's athletic cup? I have . . . several times, and I have fun doing it. One guy bought steel re-inforcement for his equipment! I got a good laugh out of it. Now, consider this: Karate is intended for self-defense training. If my opponent treats me as if I'm a fragile object, and that is all I train with, how well do you think I will be prepared for a REAL attack, by a very eager, angry man?

Since this post and the other are tied, I will respond to both with my own story: As many of you know, I am a black belt in karate -- at five feet, 3 inches tall and 115 pounds. As you might guess, I am a bit of an underdog in a male-dominated sport. During one competition, I was against a male. He babied me through the fight, because I was a girl. I won -- and refused the trophy. It is hard to explain how livid I was that this guy would see me as so inferior that he would baby me through the fight. Losing wasn't a problematic scenario for me . . . but winning when I didn't deserve to WAS horribly problematic. If I couldn't earn it on my own, I didn't want it. Period. On the flip side, I fought a different man, several years later, who respected me enough to fight me with everything he had (yes, he was a fellow black belt). I gave him a black eye, and happily walked away with the trophy. My suggestion for the baseball story is that the boy's father, in true kindness, should have tried to foster a sense of REAL accomplishment in his son. Even mentally-impaired individuals have thresholds for success, and it is their within their parent's responsibility to find challenges that their children can take on and succeed at. This true accomplishment will last much longer than the fleeting happiness that a one-time, faked experience could ever last. The game was the father's cop-out. Instead of helping his son find true accomplishment, he asked others to pretend a successful experience for his son. As a mother, I find this unforgivable. I have great admiration for the Pete Sampras story. There is enormous kindness in Michael's willingness to lose a game at the price of fostering the success of another. Most importantly, the success was not faked -- it was real, and it was earned. One value was exchanged for an equal or greater value. I don't see the same thing in the baseball story. Instead, the baseball story shows a value given up for a lesser (fleeting) value with no substance. As well, I need to add that the baseball story is one great big Appeal to Emotion. Of course it is sad to see children who are mentally impaired. Of course it is sad that they cannot have experiences that other, mentally unimpaired children have. And, yes, it is kind to reach out to children who suffer due to no fault of their own. The question is "HOW" do we reach out? Do we simply react to the sadness of the boy's situation? Or, do we take a step back and think, "Is this the best way to give this boy true happiness?" Faking reality is not the answer for me. Instead, it would be nice to see a young boy hold open a door for a mentally impaired child, or to help him open his locker at school. If he is really determined to go out of his way to help the boy, he could befriend him -- reading books and/or playing games with him at his house. These things are much more substantial -- they are real -- and they will have a lasting impact on the boy and his life.

You are such an optimist! After envisioning anal-raped monkeys and trolls, I'm going to take an aspirin now.

Exactly right (and with pretty colors, even)!

I live in Illinois, and I can attest to the extreme leftist nature of Obama's policies and programs. I agree that a person shouldn't take a politician's campaign propaganda at face value, at least not before researching the candidate. It is easy enough to find out what the candidates have and have not supported (in actuality) in the past.

Modesty be damned!

I have often pondered the world-reaction to this election. The irony is that I doubt it will lessen the view of America as racist and sexist. The reason I say this is that we are one of the wealthiest nations in the world . . . our "poor" people are richer than some of the richest people in poor countries, yet we are often viewed as a "greedy" nation filled with egotistical "haves" who purposefully keep the "have-nots" groveling for scraps. Edit -- to add an additional point . . . No, I haven't participated in Tai-Chi, but it is a wonderful art for those who need low-impact, low-stress physical training. I have recommended it as a supplement to our style, which is pretty physically demanding.

Indeed! Hope and Change, Hope and Change. LOL I should mention that I live in Illinois (Obama's state), and I can attest to the fact that not all of Obama's words are hot air. He has implemented some of the programs at the state level that he is encouraging in his platform. All of the programs are worthless, and entirely too expensive. . . but that is besides the point.

Wow, about 80% of this thread was a waste of my very valuable time . . . So, to get back on point (which is NOT a waste of my time): I'm a Libertarian that detests the fact that a third party candidate has a better chance of producing a mutant alien child than getting elected as President of this essentially great country. When all of the candidates I prefer are weeded out of the running, I tend toward the Republican side, because my views of economics take a SLIGHT precedence over social values. However, it still becomes a problem of choosing the lesser of two evils. With that said, it is reasonable to assume (based on the lesson of history) that a Democrat will be elected to office this time around. Bush has been a bust, people are ticked, and they DO want change. To most people, who pay as much attention to politics as I did to the preacher at church when my parents forced me to go as a child, a "change" means "non-Republican". Is this a bit pessimistic? Of course, but it is commensurate with previous elections. If my assumption is correct, we are going to be in worse financial hell in short order. Both Democratic candidates have a long history of HUGE government and, therefore, high taxation. Neither are friends to business, nor are they friends of the individual. Profit is a blasphemy to them (well, not to their own pocket-books, of course . . . just everyone else's). Obama is a very talented public speaker, and his intellect is obvious. However, because his world-view is so skewed toward the collective, his talent and intellect are more of a weapon than a boon. Hillary has less talent, even though she is quite bright. Regardless, any ability she has also mutates into a weapon as these abilities serve her collectivistic aims. In summary, I'm not looking forward to this election.

Every time I look at Icarus Landing, I am reminded of how powerful the nude can be. I wish I could be there for your lecture . . .! You should publish the transcript afterwards. ;) Ginnie

I'm once again focused on picking the lesser of two evils. I wonder what it feels like to be able to fully support a candidate that actually has the potential to win the White House?!

Congratulations Michael! I had a wonderful time interviewing you -- it was even better than the opera (blasphemy, I know!). I can only hope that my next interview subject is as interesting, intelligent, and fun as you! Ginnie

Holy Cow, Michael . . . Venus absolutely glows! And here I thought that she was damned near perfect when I saw her previously . . . I could look at her all day. Beautiful, indeed.

Michael, That was a beautiful post -- thank you so much for sharing. Not all will appreciate such a personal, introspective explanation of one's work, but I emphatically do.