Re: Chi in MMA?

On 21/02/2011 9:22 PM, usagi wrote:
On Feb 21, 4:16 pm, Greendistantstar<Greendistants...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

the 4 'known' forces. are you implying there are unknown forces? just
think...maybe there are...or maybe there are not.

Maybe there are leprechauns, maybe there are not. Those who believe in things for which there is no
evidence have the burden of proof, not the skeptic.

i'm not saying that
you are wrong, just that your argument is not a valid one.

No, your argument isn't valid.

Unfortunately, it is. When the skeptic is the one claiming that chi
isn't real because chi bolts don't exist, the burden of proof is on
the skeptic to show that chi is equivalent to chi bolts. Unfortunately
for you, my argument does not support chi bolts nor no touch knockouts
nor anything else yellow bambooesque. My argument that Chi has a use
can't be countered by you because you do not understand what I mean by
the word Chi. When you say "Chi isn't real" you sound clueless. You
have no idea what I mean when I say Chi. That is a very valid
argument, one that underlines everything you have ever said about Chi

seeing as Ollie is NOT arguing that Chi is force at a distance...thus
he is talking about mechanical force..which is a different thing

Ollie changes his definition around to suit the argument.

Is that why I haven't bothered to change the Chi FAQ in several years?
Your claims aren't adding up here.

Chi is simply an outdated way of explaining things for which we now have adequate scientific
explanations. People used to believe that thunderstorms were caused by the Gods fighting in the
heavens, and of course we now know they're not.

Scientific explanations are just words on a piece of paper. They don't
tell you how to train. That being said, no, I haven't ever seen a
scientific definition which focused on a method and/or practice
similar to chi kung. What you are doing here is blindly assuming --
without any proof -- that any possible use of chi would be able to be
explained by scientific means. And you are right -- but it hasn't been
done yet. So isn't it you who is just changing the definition to suit
your argument? Essentially, you claim you "now have" adequate
scientific explanations.


I'd love to put them in the Chi FAQ.

There are actually links to hundreds of scientific studies connected
to the subject, in the Chi FAQ. I would LOVE to include links to
credible criticisms of Chi in the Chi FAQ. And indeed I have even gone
so far as to propose what form a credible criticism of Chi would take.
Where are they? I would LOVE to see one.

Ollie's arguments usually boil down to him accusing others of disbelieving in thunderstorms because
they don't accept his archaic explanation.

Pisspoor example. We aren't talking about something which both parties
have reasonable experience with. We're talking about something you
simply don't understand, but which uses the same name as some crap you
saw in a movie or in a videogame. And you ran with what you know. I
don't blame you, to a point -- but you've been told quite a few times
now, and you're just not playing ball.

Totally clueless.


"Let's roll!"