foreveryoung001 Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 What an interesting conversation I recently found out that everyone who has eaten a piece of bread is going to die. This was a bit of a shocker. I guess we had better have some regulations on bread consumption. And water.... it is possible, although unlikely, that you could actually drink too much water and end up dead. I am calling for new regulations on all water faucets so that we can protect our population from this inherent evil. Seriously though, when your child is riding in a vehicle, if you do not take the proper saftey precautions, ie, seat belts, car seats, posted speed limits, etc... then I think you are just as negligent as Mr. Let's-Swing-A-Big-Stick-At-My-Kid's-Head. If it were an adult in the demo, that could give his/her consent to being swung at, then it's a different argument altogether. Would his skill be considered any less efficient because he had an adult rather than a child? Or can he only prove his skills by putting a child in harms way? Student: "Why did you hit that guy with a chair? Why didn't you use your karate?"Master: "Hitting him with a chair was the only karate I could think of at the time."Lesson: Practice until you don't have to think.
47MartialMan Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 Back to "vehicular endangerment". Might as well not bring the child to the doctor or a hospital. Ambulances-whoa, cant get in one of those, that's endangerment. foreveryoung001 points it out well: If it were an adult in the demo, that could give his/her consent to being swung at, then it's a different argument altogether. Would his skill be considered any less efficient because he had an adult rather than a child? Or can he only prove his skills by putting a child in harms way? Or even "placing" the cup on a stand or ledge?
Drunken Monkey Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 but children aren't entirely stupid. if you ask most children whether or not they'd let you swing a pair of them at their heads, they will say no... but then again we don't know if the kid really had the choice to say no. post count is directly related to how much free time you have, not how intelligent you are."When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite."
Red J Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 If I follow the logic then soon we will have human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, and mass hysteria! And I thought the evil circus clowns were a problem. Sheesh. I had to lose my mind to come to my senses.
foreveryoung001 Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 but children aren't entirely stupid. Debatable. But, as a father, it is my job to think for my child. When my child says, "hey dad, can this guy swing a nunchuck at my head?", I have to be the smart one and say, "Sure go ahead.... uh, I mean I don't think that would be such a good idea." I also have to be the one to make sure he fastens his seat belt, and that I drive respectably, and make sure he brushes his teetth, and washes behind his ears, and............ I don't blame the kid, I blame the parent. Student: "Why did you hit that guy with a chair? Why didn't you use your karate?"Master: "Hitting him with a chair was the only karate I could think of at the time."Lesson: Practice until you don't have to think.
47MartialMan Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 but children aren't entirely stupid. if you ask most children whether or not they'd let you swing a pair of them at their heads, they will say no... but then again we don't know if the kid really had the choice to say no. Not stupid....naive, gullable, etc... Hmmnnn, I guess there are some "Adult Children" out there
Drunken Monkey Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 but that's the point. look at the floor in that clip. it's quite clearly covered in water from previous attempts. i.e shows that there was quite a lot of practice before the final one was filmed. yes i know the use of a child is questionable but how do you know that the child is actually in any real danger of being hit? post count is directly related to how much free time you have, not how intelligent you are."When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite."
47MartialMan Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 Yeah, it is just the idea of "using" the child in the first place. Perhaps another assiatant or method could have been used.
foreveryoung001 Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 but that's the point. look at the floor in that clip. it's quite clearly covered in water from previous attempts. i.e shows that there was quite a lot of practice before the final one was filmed. What the video doesn't show the other kids that he used to perfect his technique. It would be bad TV if they showed a bunch of 10 year olds all battered and bruised from when he missed during practice. Now I doubt that really happened, but let's say that he did use an adult to practice on first, why does that make it okay to put your child in harms way for the sake of a demonstration? Student: "Why did you hit that guy with a chair? Why didn't you use your karate?"Master: "Hitting him with a chair was the only karate I could think of at the time."Lesson: Practice until you don't have to think.
47MartialMan Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 What the video doesn't show the other kids that he used to perfect his technique. It would be bad TV if they showed a bunch of 10 year olds all battered and bruised from when he missed during practice. Perhaps, could have happened.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now