"Evilness"and "morality" of Martial Arts

[Ceicei]

I had debated with myself whether to post this in the Kenpo area or with General Martial Arts. I decided the subject is applicable to a broader range, so I'll post this to the General area.

As some of you already know, the kenpo studio closed down and I had to make transition to yet another studio. The instructors with the current studio carried over the material from the previous one and then over the course of the past year, started modifying some techniques.

Of course, an instructor can change his teaching materials however he wishes--that is his choice and his right. It is his school.

I started observing a pattern of modifications and this pattern is what is causing me to consider more about my self defense goals (at least as how they are for me).

His modifications are taking out the more lethal moves (or as some other martial artists here may say this way, a form of watering down or sanitizing). Finally, I decided to ask the two instructors why just to clarify for myself their intent with changing.

One said that the certain moves were removed becaise they're "evil". They do more harm than good. (Mind you, this is an adult's class, not children's class.) The other instructor said it is for liability reasons the changes were made. It is a "moral" change.

My response to my instructors was "there are evil people out there in the world."

<Rant On>

Evil? Moral? When did martial arts moves take upon an evil or moral aspect?

I do believe, ideally, that martial artists should have morals and have a sense of what is right and wrong. They, hopefully, will know of ways to avoid trouble and reduce confrontation. A martial artist will fight if the need arises and if there is no other way possible to avoid the situation.

In today's world, liability is a very real issue, especially with a "sue-happy" mentality. I can understand the concern there.

Yet I can't help but think, are not adults capable of deciding whether or not to use certain methods, techniques, or moves when a potential confrontation happens that may very well be a matter of life and death? Is it fair to change things by "withholding" knowledge simply because some moves are "evil" or "less moral"?

The reality is there ARE evil people out there with no regard for the life of others and would not care much about the morals of society. Thankfully, there aren't too many, but they do exist and we cannot always predict when or who may come into our lives.

On a related subject, not too long ago, a person commented that Judo may be safer--there are no strikes. I beg to differ. There are throws, holds, and takedowns with Judo that could be lethal (and thus fall under the definition of being "evil". :rolleyes: ) [Evidently the person isn't aware that Judo does indeed have strikes in later stages of learning, but I digress.]

Personally, I don't think any physical move with any martial art is "evil" or "moral". I think this is all within the intent of the person making these moves.

<Rant Off>

Any thought or observation to share?

- Ceicei

[Big Don]

Thoughts? A few...
Boy, are you in the wrong place. To learn from someone you have to have a certain amount of faith in not only their abilities but THEM. If you are trying to learn from someone whose ideals differ so greatly from yours, something is going to suffer, you, most likely. Martial arts is a set of tools. Like you said, morals don't enter into it.

[Ceicei]

I'm thinking this out:

With most martial arts, I would say the degrees of physical force presented would be the first level of using control (causing no injury) up to the final level (if necessary) of causing death.

I had erroneously assumed that many martial artists would accept the risk of going to the final level, but I suppose there are some martial artists who are comfortable remaining as close as possible to the first level and not wanting to consider or deal with the possibility of the final level.

It makes me wonder how far would one be willing to go, if the need arises, under certain situations? I suppose no one will really know the answer until such a situation comes.

- Ceicei

[Carol]

The "final level" depends on a lot of different factors.

How much force would, say, a 130 pound woman need to halt a situation? The answer might depend on whether the situation was caused by the woman's 8 year old autistic child....or whether the situation was caused by a 300+ pound drugged out thug that's decided he's not taking no for an answer.

[tellner]

One of two things is going to happen here.

You'll grit your teeth, hold out and be uncomfortable and unhappy.

OR

You'll leave and find a school that's more in line with your values and ethics.

It's as simple as that.

There isn't any need to defend the presence of lethal techniques or your desire to have them among your options. You're a mature responsible adult with well integrated values. You've made The Decision (http://www.corneredcat.com/Mindset/decision.aspx) which sets the tone for your life in martial arts and self defense. They have elected not to do so and have thereby limited their options and those of their students. If it were children I could understand their point of view. But you are not. Neither are your fellow students.

The following rant isn't necessarily for your benefit. You already understand. But it might say the things you know in a slightly different useful way.

Techniques have no volition. They have no mind. They are not moral actors. They can not be good or evil. They are simply physical movements with certain effects. It is those effects and the will which carries them out which carry a legal and ethical weight.

If you like to hurt people and use them for sadistic pleasure you are doing something evil. If you use them because you honestly believe that deadly force is necessary to protect innocent life you are acting in an entirely moral fashion.

In fact I'd go a step further. If memory serves you are a mother. If you aren't I'm sure you could imagine being one. If using a deadly technique would save the life of your spouse or keep someone from raping one of your children it would violate the most basic and universal ethos not to use it. Defense of the innocent against the evil doer is the basis of morality and civilization.

If your teachers do not understand this I maintain that they could take lessons in essential philosophy from a dog with puppies or things that live under rocks and bite whatever threatens their larvae. Self defense is very serious business. If students are not brought to the point where they confront the issues and make their own decisions the teachers have failed. If they are taking martial arts to learn to defend themselves against the threat of serious violent crime they must understand the range of options and levels of force of which they are capable. Any sifu who simply omits these is doing his students a grave disservice and has no business teaching self defense. If he says he is doing so in any comprehensive manner he is a fraud.

That's harsh. But it's the truth as plainly as I can tell it.

[tellner]

The "final level" depends on a lot of different factors.

How much force would, say, a 130 pound woman need to halt a situation? The answer might depend on whether the situation was caused by the woman's 8 year old autistic child....or whether the situation was caused by a 300+ pound drugged out thug that's decided he's not taking no for an answer.

We like to use the example of Bubba and Grandma.

Bubba is a 400 pound power lifter who use to be the front four for the Cincinnati Bengals. His testicles have shrunk to the size of BBs because of the steroids. He currently works as a longshoreman.

Grandma has taken 85 trips around that mean old sun and weighs one pound for each of them. She gets around pretty well all things considered.

Say Grandma's medications are off and she gets confused. She tries to hit Bubba with her walker. He might, might be justified in holding her at arm's length until she gets tired.

Suppose Bubba goes into steroid-induced psychosis and takes a step towards Grandma. If she shoots him so full of holes that birds and small raccoons can nest in his chest cavity the police will take a look at the situation and say "Nice groups, ma'am. Do you need a ride home? Are you alright?"

Not all cases are as extreme as that. But seriously, in an unarmed physical confrontation the average woman is at a possibly lethal disadvantage against the average man. She has to pick at least two out of four of G-d, luck, skill or a double helping of bloody-mindedness to prevail if she's willing to shed her normal civilized inhibitions. If she wants to restrict her techniques to those which can not kill or disable she'd better be damned good.

One of the reasons to continue training is so that you can be that good.

[Kennedy_Shogen_Ryu]

The "evilness" in martial arts is that most of the styles that exist were originally intended as a means of effective defense. In some cases (my thought is of traditional Okinawan Karate which was used to defend empty handed against Japanese Samurai armed with swords) a martial art was designed to be a killing art.

I can speak only of what I know. Our chief instructor in Okinawa told us that pre WWII Karate techniques were killing techniques. These were then watered down when the Americans began learning and they didn't want to teach the full extent of their art to their conquerors. These watered down techniques were then brought back to North America and taught. We have just now in the last couple years gone back to learning and teaching the art as it originally was (though we don't teach some of the "harsher" techniques to children.

The "morality" of martial arts is that most instructors now teach with the belief that under the sky we are all brothers and sisters and there is no reason for one to want to hurt the other. Unfortunately, there are the idiots out there who cant' be happy with themselves and therefore wish to take this out on someone else.

There are those of fight who are willing to fight so those who can't don't have to.

All just my opinion of course!

[Andy Moynihan]

Stuff and nonsense.

Martial arts are neither good nor bad until first they are used by a good or bad person. Same way no firearm ever loaded, aimed, and fired itself.

And just who the hell are these people that they dictate what is "moral" and "evil" to others?

As politikally inkorrekt as it is, it remains the truth nonetheless: there are certain rare times when it is perfectly appropriate to kill someone.

If they are not mature enough to handle that fact and know who of their students can and can't handle learning that level yet then, frankly, they have no goddamned business teaching, irrespective of rank.

[Drac]

Stuff and nonsense.

Martial arts are neither good nor bad until first they are used by a good or bad person. Same way no firearm ever loaded, aimed, and fired itself.

And just who the hell are these people that they dictate what is "moral" and "evil" to others?

As politikally inkorrekt as it is, it remains the truth nonetheless: there are certain rare times when it is perfectly appropriate to kill someone.

If they are not mature enough to handle that fact and know who of their students can and can't handle learning that level yet then, frankly, they have no goddamned business teaching, irrespective of rank.

Well said Andy...

[stone_dragone]

I'm surprised that no one has paraphrased the quote by Larrius Cable Gaius...

"...If [techniques] are to blame for killing someone, then I can blame my pencil for misspelled words."

[morph4me]

Techniques are tools, and tools are neither inherently good or evil. That's like saying fire or water are evil because they can cause damage

While I have no problem with the watering down of techniques for people who are interested in physical fitness, I believe that teaching an ineffective technique that someone may have to depend upon to prevent bodily harm or death, or claiming that a particular technique is 100% effective 100% of the time, is immoral and evil.

In the end the decision to use a tool, and how and when, is up to the individual, who must also be ready and willing to accept the consequences for their actions.

Personally I would start looking for a different place to train.

[Cirdan]

Hmm.. I better go dull all my sharp evil kitchen knives.

[ppko]

Here is my problems with you instructors issue of taking out anything lethal first of all it takes away an option, if you need to take it that far. If it is not taught you no longer have the option open to you

[MantisStyle21]

I also believe they should not ristrict teaching to non-lethal techniques. The fact is that there are people out there who will put away their "non-lethal" methods to come after you and get what they want.

I don't know about anyone else but when the stuff hits the fan, and it comes down to me or them, I'm throwing all morals out the window, cause the man trying to kill me already has.

I personally would find a new school to learn to, the instructors are seriously taking away a vital part of martial arts. No one at that school may ever have to use a lethal technique, and if they stay there, I hope they never do. But if your luck is like mine and you stay there, one day you will be the only person out of that "non-lethal" school to be in a situation to use "lethal" force

My two cents. -Billy

[Bigshadow]

Stuff and nonsense.

Martial arts are neither good nor bad until first they are used by a good or bad person. Same way no firearm ever loaded, aimed, and fired itself.

And just who the hell are these people that they dictate what is "moral" and "evil" to others?

As politikally inkorrekt as it is, it remains the truth nonetheless: there are certain rare times when it is perfectly appropriate to kill someone.

If they are not mature enough to handle that fact and know who of their students can and can't handle learning that level yet then, frankly, they have no goddamned business teaching, irrespective of rank.

Well said Andy! http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif It isn't the weapon (the techniques in this case) that are evil or moral. It is the wielder of those weapons that is evil or not, or moral or not. Sometimes taking a life gives a life! One must be prepared to take their attacker's life if necessary!

[Kodiak61]

Long and short of it…if you need to defend your self, loved ones, or an individual we must have all the “tools” needed. Liability and litigation can be sorted out later. Police officers have an unofficial rule…better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6. I would find another place to train. God forbid, but a time may come when you or your family will survive on your skills. Remember we do NOT rise to our expectations, but sink to our level of training.

[Langenschwert]

What the hell are they thinking?

Our ancestors died to learn this kind of stuff. To negate and censor what they paid for with their own blood is the ultimate in disrespect to the Art. It is dangerous, foolish, and utterly reprehensible. I have nothing else to say.

Best regards,

-Mark

[CoryKS]

I think this is a great idea because, as everybody knows, bad things will go away if you don't think about them.

[bydand]

I think this is a great idea because, as everybody knows, bad things will go away if you don't think about them.

Quite right! I'm going to start a whole new world peace movement by locking myself in the living room and playing Video games and thinking happy thoughts of others. That way I will miss the news and everything else that is happening out there. :) :lfao:

I have been thinking of the original post for a while now, and cannot come up with a viable argument to do this to an MA and still say it is a SD art. If you want to turn it into a glorified exercise program, then at least be honest about it and say so, same if you want to make it more "mass appealing" and up your student body (and therefore your bottom line.) I think the concepts of "Evilness/morality & truth/honor" go hand in hand. If you don't want to, or believe you shouldn't be, teaching an aspect of an art and you own the school, you should have enough honesty and integrity to gather your students and explain the changes you want to make and why you feel the changes are a good thing for the school. Also have on hand a list of other instructors in the area teaching the same art that you feel are good instructors and give the list to those students who don't agree with the new policies. To go about and change things gradually IMHO is just a polite way of saying the students are not bright enough to notice anything if done slowly.

I know of a school that did the same exact thing as soon as they got a new place to train and new equipment, they cut out a vast amount of the nitty-gritty in order to spoon feed a pablum art to the masses. I cannot in good conscious recommend it to anyone who is looking for a SD option, if they are just looking for a workout from a fitness aspect, it isn't a bad school and the owners are nice people.

[kidswarrior]

One said that the certain moves were removed becaise they're "evil". They do more harm than good. (Mind you, this is an adult's class, not children's class.) The other instructor said it is for liability reasons the changes were made. It is a "moral" change.

My response to my instructors was "there are evil people out there in the world."

<Rant On>

Evil? Moral? When did martial arts moves take upon an evil or moral aspect?

I do believe, ideally, that martial artists should have morals and have a sense of what is right and wrong. They, hopefully, will know of ways to avoid trouble and reduce confrontation. A martial artist will fight if the need arises and if there is no other way possible to avoid the situation.

....I can't help but think, are not adults capable of deciding whether or not to use certain methods, techniques, or moves when a potential confrontation happens that may very well be a matter of life and death? Is it fair to change things by "withholding" knowledge simply because some moves are "evil" or "less moral"?

- CeiceiThe part I bolded sums up my feelings, which are in line with yours, Ceicei. :asian: If instructors can't trust the adults they're teaching to make moral and just decisions about use of force, then why are they teaching them martial arts? I'd personally weed out any student I believed didn't have a strong sense of right and wrong (or wasn't at least learning this distinction as they progressed).

Beyond that, I'll just concur with the many good replies already posted. Martial skills are just tools. I believe Bishop Desmond Tutu just answered a question recently by saying that a knife can be good or bad. He used the extreme examples of whether it's used to slice bread or to cut off an arm. It's the wielder who makes the choice.

[morph4me]

I think this is a great idea because, as everybody knows, bad things will go away if you don't think about them.


Ahh yes, the ostrich principle, bury your head in the sand and you'll be safe, because if you can't see the predators, they can't see you. Makes perfect sense to me :uhyeah:

[MA-Caver]

Ceicei, my heart goes out to you because I know that this adds to your frustration in your attempts to achieve (some of ) your goals as a MA-ist. I can understand the line of thought of how can one receive the rank of black-belt if they haven't properly learned the fullness of the techniques listed for that rank? How would you call yourself a true EPAK BB if you continued under these instructors and their ideals and gotten the rank from them? It's not fair that they've gotten their rank in the fullness of the teachings and that they water-down yours because they don't think it's right anymore.
Your two instructors I think are confusing their own personal religious beliefs and doctrine into their instructions. They may think it's wrong to kill and by forfeit think it's wrong to teach someone to kill. But IMO they have strayed from the true teachings and principals of MA altogether by the insertion of their own personal beliefs into their teachings.

Knowing your area and situation and the difficulties in getting a regular f/t EPAK teacher makes it that much more difficult for you to obtain your goal(s). But knowing you, you'll persist til you achieve it, even if it means miles of travel to/from. :asian:

I agree with Tellner with his statements. What is evil is defined by those who witness the act or see the results. Any LEO will tell you saving your life or the life of defenseless others isn't evil but a right under our present constitution.
No, nobody really wants to take it to the final level. But anyone who has read the threads found in MT's Horror Stories, The Study and elsewhere will agree that sometimes the final level of defense is necessary. Having the skills to do what is necessary is essential in any MA/SD.
As previously stated it's the choice to perform those skills that determines the level of morality and evilness of the person. Your instructors are taking away your free will to decide to implement those lethal techniques by not teaching you so to salve their own conscious. "If she kills someone then at least it wasn't ME who taught her how to do that!" They might as well give up teaching altogether or change the name of their school and the art that they're teaching.
I'm feeling that SRGM Parker (if he were alive today) wouldn't appreciate it knowing that what he set down as a standard to achieve this or that ranking is being watered down for the sake of morality. I know I wouldn't if I had created an art with techniques that needed to be taught in their entirety.
I would talk to the SR. BB and the founders of your original school (you know who I mean) about this. Sure the present instructors have a right to teach what they want... so long as they don't use the old school's name and that they don't call it EPAK anymore because they're not doing it as it should be taught, IMO. :asian:

Far as teaching children. I am in somewhat agreement of removing lethal techs but suitable alternatives should be put in place until such a time that the child is old enough to make the appropriate decision. Sometimes even a child might have to resort to extreme violence to get away from a (human) predator. As horrific as that line of thought may be, reading the aforementioned threads in their respective forums I feel backs up this line of thought.

[Mark L]

If instructors can't trust the adults they're teaching to make moral and just decisions about use of force...I think this is the single most important point. Over the course of time the student-teacher relationship develops to the extent that there are no secrets, the teacher is an open book. If that is not a possibility in your case, your path is clear.

[Lynne]

Oh, great, more political correctness junk.

In Tang Soo Do, we believe in peaceful conflict resolution, but the world is not a nice place. We need to be able defend ourselves and our loved ones.

If I am attacked, a slap across my attacker's face is not going to stop him but a hammerfist to the groin, breaking his elbow, followed by a foot sweep and his skull being cracked open might stop him.

What are your instructors thinking?

[thardey]

Which techniques have they abolished? Punching? Tripping? Shoving? Elbows?

Any of these could lead to death, if the conditions are correct (or incorrect). I mean, talk about a slippery slope!

My guess is, not that they truly want to avoid "evil" and be "moral", but that they want to be more marketable, but won't come out and say it.

Teach the pretty techs, give people a false sense of security, don't make them think too hard, and you get wider customer base!

= Money!

[jks9199]

The simple fact that every technique, just like technicology or medical techniques or anything else, is morally neutral by itself. Knowledge is morally neutral.

Anything can be used for good or for evil. Between two loving adults, sexual intercourse is an expression of love. But the same actions, done in a rape situation, are evil. If I use the gun I carry to save my life or that of another, perhaps in a school shooting situation... MY use of that gun is morally good. The shooter's use? Morally evil. Point pounded into the ground now.

As a martial arts instructor who chooses to train in and teach a combative, realistic system, it's my responsibility to be careful who I teach, and what techniques I teach certain students. I won't teach the most lethal or most destructive techniques to kids; I won't teach someone whose lack of morality scares me at all. But I trust my adult students to exercise sound and appropriate judgement when they have to defend themselves.

[elder999]

While I think what you're experiencing is a little different, Ceicei, my perspective on this gives me a little appreciation for what your-I hope soon not to be-instructors are goind through.

First, though, you should maybe look at this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/nyregion/26cigarette.html).

In a nutshell, the guy was a victim of his training, and maybe defense lawyers who weren't familiar enough with the doctrine of self defense in New York. he was a victim of his training because knife-only training doesn't offer much in the way of options. He was possibly as victim of poor defense because given the relative sizes him and his friend to the bouncer, and the fact that a choke hold to the extent that someone's legs are probably off the floor, make the circumstances (IMNSHO) one that merited the use of deadly force, provided the fellow who did the stabbing was in legitimate fear for his friend's life, and got that fact on the record-of course, his subsequent actions did nothing for his case, and he was convicted.

Relevance? In our society, the Atienza's (the defendant's instructors) could easily-and may still-find themselves in court as liable for what they taught the young man, if not as a matter of criminal liability, then a civil one.

More importantly, as an instructor myself, I think that there's a responsibility involved in choosing just whom you impart certain information to. It's for this reason, and this reason alone, that I use contracts-the contract is an obligation on my part to take a student to a certain level, and I don't have any that go from white belt to black, they're all curriculum based. That means, that if someone proves to be, well, potentially irresponsible (since I can't really say that they're an *******) I can conclude the contract and tell them I don't want to teach them anymore.

You're right about judo-more right than a lot of people are aware of. Almost all the throws are potentially deadly, and some that are rather commonplace and learned early on, koshi-garuma, for example, have imbedded adjustments that almost ensure grave injury, if not death. Of course, when I teach new students koshi-garuma, I don't mention this at all-in fact, no one knows about it until they're at brown belt, and I've had very few of those. Ditto most knife techniques, "harder" chokes, neck destructions, etc.This is probably what your instructors should be doing, rather than altering and adjusting the curriculum to suit a more (I think) "moral, family atmosphere."

Or, in other words, a more commercially viable one.

(jeez, two people said pretty much what I did with a lot less words while I was typing this....:lol: )

[Nomad]

By making this "moral" decision for you, they are removing your ability to choose. Techniques aren't evil. How you use them could be.

If you give a simple push to an old man at the top of a flight of stairs, he will likely fall down and break his neck. This would be considered evil by most of us. A rape victim (or potential victim) who gouges out the eyes of her assailant would be viewed in quite another way. The push is not evil and the eye gouging is not good; both are tools of varying complexity which a martial artist should have available to them, especially if self-defense is one of their primary goals.

Context means everything. There is no such thing as a "fair" fight, and there are no such things as "evil" techniques.

What they are really saying with these arguments is that they don't trust their students, and they are afraid that some of them will use the techniques in an inappropriate manner... and they don't want to be responsible for that. It is easier to simply remove the techniques from the curriculum than it would be to accurately judge who could learn them and when (without worrying about them abusing the techniques).

[Ceicei]

I was so tempted to directly ask my instructors, "Were you ever attacked?" but I suppose that may be unfair for them as it would be a loaded question, especially when coming from me. I want to become skilled so that the next time...<pause>

<sigh> I wonder if I am too much of a pessimist and see things darkly. The thing is--we cannot avoid the fact there are people who think and do in evil ways. I do believe, however, that generally, most people are good and have good intentions. Having a level of skepticism while allowing for some trust (and reliance on gut feeling) is the view I hold.

Being aware and preparing for possibilities are my live long pursuit. There are some people who hint that doing martial arts and having firearms border on paranoia and fear. On the contrary, I think that being aware and having those tools (martial arts skills and firearms) is simply adding to a range of choices and a person should have a strong sense of right and wrong in deciding which choice to do.

<looking at the wall while thinking>

I am trying to decide my options.

I want more kenpo and I want to be challenged. I would love going back to my previous kenpo instructor who taught me much and emphasized the reality of life and the exploration of how to make things work, but returning back to him is not to be at this point.

It is not too far off before I get my kenpo black belt; yet if I stay and get my black belt under my current instructors in spite of their instruction, wouldn't that be considered "chasing a rank"? Could I get my black belt from them and then go elsewhere to continue my training the way that fits with my training goals? Currently, I cross-train with another style (jujitsu) and my DZRJ instructor, thankfully, is a strong advocate in being prepared. He is not adverse to teaching moves that could be lethal.

If I decide to go elsewhere now to train with kenpo (which would make that studio a seventh one on my journey), there is a possibility of starting over at white again (which I have had to do twice before with other studios). For quality instruction under an excellent instructor, I don't mind starting over--It helps ensure that I get the basics down solidly through repetition. On the other hand, another studio may still allow me to keep the rank--although I know they will expect me to learn how to do things their way.

There is a small thought in the back of my mind "when will I ever become a black belt?" My former instructor had said in several different ways that a "black belt" is an attitude and is more than just the color. The color is not a reflection of skill, although ideally, it should match the skill level.

I have much to ponder on which direction to take with my journey.

- Ceicei

[Ceicei]

Another thought I've been thinking.

I can still continue practicing at home the more lethal versions of the techniques I previously learned. Of course, I can graft different moves into other techniques. It is not the same thing though, as being able to learn the nuances and the how and why under the watchful eye of a more experienced martial artist.

Back to the original point that started this thread... I don't think instructors who thought the same way as my current ones do are all that rare. I've been reading through different threads here and there and it made me wonder how many out there who hold the same view.

How do you who are instructors reconcile the liability issues with the teaching of certain moves/methods/techniques that could be considered dangerous?

- Ceicei

[Ceicei]

Hmm.. I better go dull all my sharp evil kitchen knives.

Thanks for the laugh! :mst:

- Ceicei

[Sukerkin]

If instructors can't trust the adults they're teaching to make moral and just decisions about use of force, then why are they teaching them martial arts? I'd personally weed out any student I believed didn't have a strong sense of right and wrong (or wasn't at least learning this distinction as they progressed).

That's such a good point that highlights an important area of responsibility I thought it worth re-stating :tup:.

As has been said in several excellent ways by others above, the techniques of an art are not inherently Good or Evil (other than "Monkey Steals A Peach" of course :D) but rather the person using them and the use to which they are put infuses them with such qualities.

I've said myself on several occaisions on similar threads, that one of the duties of a good teacher of martial arts is to excercise judgement as to whom they teach. Train a good person in an art and you have shown someone how to defend themselves should they ever need to. Teach a thug how to employ effective martial arts techniques and all you have is a more dangerous thug.

It's one of the reasons why I don't like large, commercial, dojo's i.e. it's hard for those running them to employ their moral divining rods to weed out the 'bad' ones when the roster gets too lengthy.

[tellner]

I was so tempted to directly ask my instructors, "Were you ever attacked?" but I suppose that may be unfair for them as it would be a loaded question, especially when coming from me. I want to become skilled so that the next time...<pause>

<sigh> I wonder if I am too much of a pessimist and see things darkly. The thing is--we cannot avoid the fact there are people who think and do in evil ways. I do believe, however, that generally, most people are good and have good intentions. Having a level of skepticism while allowing for some trust (and reliance on gut feeling) is the view I hold.
It's a very legitimate question. I'd ask them privately, outside of class, preferably outside the school. They are obviously coming from a radically different place than you are. Your experiences are much different, especially since you talk about "the next time". If anyone's reality checks are bouncing it's theirs. Your attitude is completely reasonable.

Now there is a danger in being obsessed with the dangerous stuff. You can drive yourself crazy by filling your mind with scenarios, bad memories and practicing the lethal stuff with a vicious attitude to the exclusion of everything else. The same thing in an attenuated form is a common part of a martial artist's development from time to time. Once fear isn't a problem anymore it dies down. It's all a matter of striking a realistic dynamic balance in your life.


Being aware and preparing for possibilities are my live long pursuit. There are some people who hint that doing martial arts and having firearms border on paranoia and fear. On the contrary, I think that being aware and having those tools (martial arts skills and firearms) is simply adding to a range of choices and a person should have a strong sense of right and wrong in deciding which choice to do.
I know what you're saying. My youngest sister and I have not spoken for the past two years and will probably not again. She made it abundantly clear that as long as I do martial arts and own firearms I am not welcome in her house or in social situations with her children.

The sort of mindset you are describing is common with people who have never had to deal with the bad people in the world on a physical level. They do not want to even take a hard look at that part of life because it's unpleasant and alien. Many times they are suspicious of anyone who touches that world let alone carries it around with them.

Sometimes they're right. The twitchy tactical-everything sort of MAist or shooter who is always talking about or looking for trouble isn't someone you want to spend much time around. If you're otherwise reasonably well-balanced and they're still afraid they're the ones with the problem.


I am trying to decide my options.

I want more kenpo and I want to be challenged. I would love going back to my previous kenpo instructor who taught me much and emphasized the reality of life and the exploration of how to make things work, but returning back to him is not to be at this point.

It is not too far off before I get my kenpo black belt; yet if I stay and get my black belt under my current instructors in spite of their instruction, wouldn't that be considered "chasing a rank"? Could I get my black belt from them and then go elsewhere to continue my training the way that fits with my training goals? Currently, I cross-train with another style (jujitsu) and my DZRJ instructor, thankfully, is a strong advocate in being prepared. He is not adverse to teaching moves that could be lethal.
The Cert is useful. There's no reason not to get the reward and recognition for your hard work, especially if it isn't far off and will help you in your later martial arts relations. If these guys are the only ones in town you might have to tough it out and then go somewhere else for further training. If they aren't, remember the classic Motown song "You Better Shop Around". You're not going to be happy there in the long term. Their values are not compatible with yours, and it sounds like there are other underlying personality conflicts under the surface. Life is too short to stay somewhere where you and the people you are with aren't happy with each other.


If I decide to go elsewhere now to train with kenpo (which would make that studio a seventh one on my journey), there is a possibility of starting over at white again (which I have had to do twice before with other studios). For quality instruction under an excellent instructor, I don't mind starting over--It helps ensure that I get the basics down solidly through repetition. On the other hand, another studio may still allow me to keep the rank--although I know they will expect me to learn how to do things their way.
Seven schools? That's quite a few. You might want to consider why you've been switching so often, especially if it's not due to things like moving, schools closing or the like. Starting over can be alright. It can also be a waste of your time after a certain point. Doing the first six months twenty times is not the same as doing ten years.

There are two new students in our Silat class. One has a black belt in TKD. She's going through the usual cross-training problems compounded by her reflexes from the other style. But she's making good progress. The other has had fifteen or twenty years of Silat in the Netherlands and Indonesia. The two or them are at about the same level in our curriculum. But nobody treats him like a beginner. His skill is obvious, so he trains mostly with more advanced students and gets pushed as far as those of us who have been at it a while.

It's one of the things that makes me glad we don't have a graded rank structure beyond "Student" and "Teacher".


There is a small thought in the back of my mind "when will I ever become a black belt?" My former instructor had said in several different ways that a "black belt" is an attitude and is more than just the color. The color is not a reflection of skill, although ideally, it should match the skill level.

I have much to ponder on which direction to take with my journey.

He's right, of course. But if you have a system which gives it as a sign that you've gotten to a certain level it's nice to know that you're there. And it can help open other doors.

As you said, you have a lot to think about. Good luck.

[kidswarrior]

It is not too far off before I get my kenpo black belt; yet if I stay and get my black belt under my current instructors in spite of their instruction, wouldn't that be considered "chasing a rank"?No, I'd say it could be thought of as finishing a long-standing goal. And no, it's not ideal, but sometimes we have to let go of our idealism and exchange it for the realism of a given situation. I was personally held back from black belt for several years longer than I later found out was usual. When I did go elsewhere and begin to work with someone else, he made me a second degree almost immediately (I had eight years in the art). So it worked out, I guess, but my point is, reality is sometimes messy and spills 'outside the lines' (to use a preschool analogy--hey, my wife used to teach it, and I helped out, so... :D).


Could I get my black belt from them and then go elsewhere to continue my training the way that fits with my training goals? Currently, I cross-train with another style (jujitsu) and my DZRJ instructor, thankfully, is a strong advocate in being prepared. He is not adverse to teaching moves that could be lethal.Sounds like a solid plan to me.

[Kacey]

As has been said, it is not the techniques that are inherently dangerous; it is the user of those techniques, along the same lines of the slogan "Guns don't kill people, People kill people". As Morph mentioned here (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=858066&postcount=11), fire and water can be weapons if applied appropriately - fire, for example, can be used to heat a home, or to burn the home down; should we, then, ban the use of fire, because it can be used to kill? Fire is a tool that can be used as a weapon.

Likewise, many techniques taught in MAs can be used as lethal techniques - even the most basic of kicks, punches, and holds can cause death if applied correctly... or incorrectly. I have to wonder what your instructors would do if someone in your class accidentally (and I do mean accidentally, rather than accidentally on purpose) injured someone because they didn't know that the technique used could be lethal? A punch or kick to the throat, if precise enough, and delivered with enough power, can kill by crushing the trachea; likewise, a hold to the throat, done correctly, can kill the opponent. All of these techniques have less lethal applications, but following the chain of logic your instructors are apparently using, they should be removed as well... where will they stop? I think you are quite right to be concerned.


How do you who are instructors reconcile the liability issues with the teaching of certain moves/methods/techniques that could be considered dangerous?

As an instructor, I consider it my responsibility to not teach techniques to students who I don't think will use them responsibly. I realize that there will be people who disagree with this, who will say that I have the responsibility to teach anyone who pays the fee - and I have yet to refuse any student the opportunity to train - but I could see a situation in which I would refuse to teach certain people certain techniques, based on their personal outlook; however, this type of person tends to respond poorly to the discipline present in many MAs and leave before the issue arises.

Also, it is important to remember that all students are individuals. As a special education teacher, it is my job to take students from wherever they are as far as they are able to go - and that is how I approach instructing TKD as well. Some students will not be able to go as far as others, or may take longer, or may be physically incapable of certain techniques - or they may be unready mentally to be taught certain things. I will still instruct them as appropriate to their abilities and individual needs - but each one is different. Some may pick things up more easily and/or quickly than others; some will be ready for advanced techniques sooner than others, and some may never be ready - but I would never remove techniques and/or refuse to teach them across the board because they might be misused.

[Gordon Nore]

I'm still struggling over over the use of the word, "evil," in this context. Had the instructor said the techniques were too "lethal" for his comfort level, I could half-way understand his point. But if he has removed techniques that are "evil," I assume he has kept others that are "less evil." (I mean, "less lethal.")

This is a total shot in the dark: Is there any possibility that the techniques in question, being more lethal, are also more complicated to teach and supervise? Could it be that the teachers are in over their heads and are not forthcoming about it? Am I being too conspiratorial?

It's ok to tell me.:soapbox:

[Ceicei]

It's a very legitimate question. I'd ask them privately, outside of class, preferably outside the school. They are obviously coming from a radically different place than you are. Your experiences are much different, especially since you talk about "the next time". If anyone's reality checks are bouncing it's theirs. Your attitude is completely reasonable.Perhaps so. I probably will not ask them that question though, at least not at this time.
Now there is a danger in being obsessed with the dangerous stuff. You can drive yourself crazy by filling your mind with scenarios, bad memories and practicing the lethal stuff with a vicious attitude to the exclusion of everything else. The same thing in an attenuated form is a common part of a martial artist's development from time to time. Once fear isn't a problem anymore it dies down. It's all a matter of striking a realistic dynamic balance in your life.It was that way before when I hadn't mentally and emotionally recovered. That thought pattern turned out to be rather destructive. It took quite a while (years actually) before I realized what I was doing and had to work my way through it.

It was not until I learned to trust myself and felt at peace with who I am before I considered expanding my martial arts study (and this included the possibility of concealed carry and the responsibilities that come with this).

The sort of mindset you are describing is common with people who have never had to deal with the bad people in the world on a physical level. They do not want to even take a hard look at that part of life because it's unpleasant and alien. Many times they are suspicious of anyone who touches that world let alone carries it around with them.

Sometimes they're right. The twitchy tactical-everything sort of MAist or shooter who is always talking about or looking for trouble isn't someone you want to spend much time around. If you're otherwise reasonably well-balanced and they're still afraid they're the ones with the problem.I agree with you. It is in every group, including martial arts, that people holding extreme views (either too much or too little) could be found. I would hope that I am considered stable by the majority of the people I associate.
The Cert is useful. There's no reason not to get the reward and recognition for your hard work, especially if it isn't far off and will help you in your later martial arts relations. If these guys are the only ones in town you might have to tough it out and then go somewhere else for further training. If they aren't, remember the classic Motown song "You Better Shop Around". You're not going to be happy there in the long term. Their values are not compatible with yours, and it sounds like there are other underlying personality conflicts under the surface. Life is too short to stay somewhere where you and the people you are with aren't happy with each other.This is not the only school in town; however, I am close to getting my black belt, so I probably will at least get that, then seek elsewhere for more indepth training. There is so much left to learn of kenpo, I'm just scratching the surface.
Seven schools? That's quite a few. You might want to consider why you've been switching so often, especially if it's not due to things like moving, schools closing or the like. Starting over can be alright. It can also be a waste of your time after a certain point. Doing the first six months twenty times is not the same as doing ten years.Fair question to ask why so many. Let me give you a very brief summary.

First school was at a college (taken as a class). I couldn't train there when I transferred to a different college. Second school was a new one that closed down. Third one was set up by an instructor who used to be my tutor and mentor with my first school. I liked being there, but then moved out of state. Before I returned, his school had closed. My fourth was run by a very accomplished instructor who had several schools "all over the place" in different towns (and one other state). I had been married a few short years and had two very young toddlers so training was a challenge. We eventually moved to a different town and family life took precedence. I didn't train for about seven years. My son discovered my box of karate gear, uniform, belts, and trophies and he wanted to take up a martial art. That caused me to decide to get back into training and I found an excellent school that fit my training style. The instructor really knew how to get me to do more than I dreamed possible. I trained with him for a little over four years before he had to close down. Two black belts (one a newly minted bb at the time) used to teach there and when the school closed, they decided to go elsewhere and open their own school by by bringing over some students with them. This became my sixth school and its been in existence for about a year now.

As you said, you have a lot to think about. Good luck.Thank you.
- Ceicei

[Ceicei]

I'm still struggling over over the use of the word, "evil," in this context. Had the instructor said the techniques were too "lethal" for his comfort level, I could half-way understand his point. But if he has removed techniques that are "evil," I assume he has kept others that are "less evil." (I mean, "less lethal.")

This is a total shot in the dark: Is there any possibility that the techniques in question, being more lethal, are also more complicated to teach and supervise? Could it be that the teachers are in over their heads and are not forthcoming about it? Am I being too conspiratorial?

It's ok to tell me.:soapbox:
Well, one of them is a bb of less than two years (and very newly minted bb when the school started), so I don't know if I can safely chalk that up to inexperience. The other instructor had joined the previous school when he already had a black belt, so he learned the school's methods in less than a year (he already knew kenpo) and then taught there as an assistant instructor for one year. When it closed, he decided to set up his own school (first time owner). Whatever their purpose is, they own this school now and can do as they wish with the material.

What their true reasons are, I don't know. It just struck me as odd for them to say that they changed techniques because some moves were 'evil' and the changing is 'moral'. I can understand the liability angle though.

- Ceicei

[dart68]

What their true reasons are, I don't know. It just struck me as odd for them to say that they changed techniques because some moves were 'evil' and the changing is 'moral'. I can understand the liability angle though.

- Ceicei

Using the term "evil" to decribe certain techniques strikes me as odd, too. I wonder if there is some sort of religious conotation to this. If so, then I fear that it may be religious fanaticism rearing it's ugly head. Please understand that I'm not bashing anyone's beliefs, but fanaticism is dangerous in itself.

I think you may need to go elsewhere, again.

[Andy Moynihan]

Well, one of them is a bb of less than two years (and very newly minted bb when the school started), so I don't know if I can safely chalk that up to inexperience. The other instructor had joined the previous school when he already had a black belt, so he learned the school's methods in less than a year (he already knew kenpo) and then taught there as an assistant instructor for one year. When it closed, he decided to set up his own school (first time owner). Whatever their purpose is, they own this school now and can do as they wish with the material.



So if I understand this correctly, both teachers are first degrees?


That explains a lot.

[Darth F.Takeda]

Ceicei,

I am sorry to hear of your delema, it's not one that has a quick, conciese answer, as you have alot at stake.

I know what it is like to be in a school where the atmosphere and training is taking a turn for the worse, in my case (Years ago) it led to a long absence from active training in the martial arts.

I would say if your with in a year from shodan, then unless it starts to get real stupid, stay till you get the belt and then LEAVE.

If it will be a few years and you will have to suffer from the watered down training, it can damge your combative abilities, so then I would leave now.

I am glad you are also studying Jujutsu. We pride ourselves in passing down techniques and tactics that give you a wide range in the force options, from "Ouch!" to dead. Several of our Shodans are also DZR shodan's, it's a good art. Maybe you could dive into it a little more?
Take the Kenpo you have learned and over time you will find where it can serve you to better apply your Jujutsu. Let me know if that's what you do, I too had a Kenpo, TKD-TSD background when I entered into Traditional/Combat Jujutsu.

On your question of how to teach the deadlier techniques and liability.

I find myself saying "For informational purposes only, this can be done like this." and I make it clear that only they can tell them when it's time to use maiming or crippling force. We only train adults anyways, and we have a high attrition rate and we like it that way.

If you are ever in Northern Virginia, come by and train with us, we use evil and good techniques.

[Ceicei]

Thank you for your comments, thoughts, and suggestions.

I plan on devoting more of my energy with Danzan Ryu Jujitsu. I have come to realize that I want to earn rank that truly means something to me. I feel a lot of satisfaction training and I feel happy associating there. However, I still want to train with Kenpo somehow. I have spent so many years learning Kenpo that I am reluctant to give up this style.

For the moment, I'll stay with the current studio while I seek around for other Kenpo options. I was supposed to test in 6 months; I seriously think from the way things are going, it may not actually be that soon. I am not sure if I will stay just to get a black belt. I am still wrestling with whether getting one from them would be "worth it".

My heart is not with that studio, and I never was able to form an allegiance for these instructors. They are good people, they are caring, and are trying hard how to teach as well as run a school. Unfortunately, they cannot offer me what I seek when our views of self defense differ so greatly.

I am friends with other kenpoists from neighboring studios. I've visited other places that held seminars. I have realized how important it is to find instructors who have similar views, not just with how the environment is in the school and the training dynamics between instructor/student. It will take me a while to search for a place.

I also plan on tracking down my former instructor (the one I've trained under for a long time) to get his feedback. It would be nice if perhaps I could secure private lessons with him, or at least get some recommendations from him with who I could train. He knows already the way I think, how I learn, and my training goals.

I cannot continue to train under instructors who consider any part of my training to be "evil". Yet, I feel I would be disloyal if I leave. I am their most senior ranked student and I know the other students there look up to me. Wouldn't this confuse the other students?

Why do I feel so conflicted here? Isn't the journey supposed to be my path that will help benefit and strengthen me to be better overall?

I wish the mist that covers my path now would fade away to give me a clear view.

- Ceicei

[morph4me]

CeiCei,

The fact that you're questioning the worth of a black belt from these instructors speaks volumes. Since you're focus seems to be self defense, you can't afford the luxury of doubting the effectiveness of what you're being taught.

I understand you being conflicted about being loyal to the school, but you can't reach your goals training there. You started on one path, with a guide that was going in the direction that you wanted to go, now the guide, and direction, has changed but your goal remains the same. Where is their loyalty to their students?

You owe it to yourself to reach your goals. Each individual has to make a decision as to what's best for themselves, you do and the other students do as well. You have to do what's best for CeiCei, and the other students have to do what's best for themselves. Good luck in making your decision. :asian:

[Ceicei]

The school or the instructors? <shrug>

I feel like I'm disloyal to the other students. You're right, they decide their own path and make their own choices. I've slept this over during the night and I no longer feel conflicted about leaving.

I'll just follow through with what I originally planned--stay to train for now while I look for another kenpo school and seek the advice of trusted kenpoists (ie. my former instructors). It will be interesting to see where the path leads on my journey.

I've decided not to worry right now whether or when I get my black belt. I will just focus upon getting quality instruction from instructors who do not determine whether a technique or a move is evil or moral. I know I'll be a black belt eventually and that belt will mean something to me.

- Ceicei

[jks9199]

The school or the instructors? <shrug>

I feel like I'm disloyal to the other students. You're right, they decide their own path and make their own choices. I've slept this over during the night and I no longer feel conflicted about leaving.

I'll just follow through with what I originally planned--stay to train for now while I look for another kenpo school and seek the advice of trusted kenpoists (ie. my former instructors). It will be interesting to see where the path leads on my journey.

I've decided not to worry right now whether or when I get my black belt. I will just focus upon getting quality instruction from instructors who do not determine whether a technique or a move is evil or moral. I know I'll be a black belt eventually and that belt will mean something to me.

- Ceicei
YOUR journey in the martial arts is your own journey. Especially after changing schools several times, you owe it to yourself to be in a school that you are comfortable with, and that answers your own needs. The example that you show to your juniors in the school is just that; that when a particular instructor's methods are at significant odds to your goals or needs or beliefs, you can't stay there. This would be as true if they were extremely in the reverse, focusing solely on lethal techniques and conducting practice muggings and killings in class, not to practice defenses but to practice actual mugging and killing.

[Balrog]

Stuff and nonsense.

Martial arts are neither good nor bad until first they are used by a good or bad person. Same way no firearm ever loaded, aimed, and fired itself.

And just who the hell are these people that they dictate what is "moral" and "evil" to others?

As politikally inkorrekt as it is, it remains the truth nonetheless: there are certain rare times when it is perfectly appropriate to kill someone.

If they are not mature enough to handle that fact and know who of their students can and can't handle learning that level yet then, frankly, they have no goddamned business teaching, irrespective of rank.

Well stated!!!

[Ceicei]

I talked to one of my current instructors last night. We talked about our martial arts philosophies and our perspectives, the differences and similarities. We also discussed my training goals. I can continue to work with both the old and new versions.

We'll see how things go....

- Ceicei

[JBrainard]

I talked to one of my current instructors last night. We talked about our martial arts philosophies and our perspectives, the differences and similarities. We also discussed my training goals. I can continue to work with both the old and new versions.

We'll see how things go....

- Ceicei

Well, that's good for you and your training, at least.

[Balrog]

Personally, I don't think any physical move with any martial art is "evil" or "moral". I think this is all within the intent of the person making these moves.

Any thought or observation to share?


I agree. A gun is not evil by itself. A knife is not evil by itself. A club is not evil by itself. It takes the intent of a human to use them to injure another.

Same with a side kick.

[Empty Hands]

Well, you are all correct of course. MA techniques, like a knife or a gun or a well-trained attack dog, are morally neutral.

Unfortunately, that is completely true and also almost completely irrelevant. The social direction, from the attitudes of judges and legislatures, all the way down to everyday people like tellner's sister is quite clear. Almost any sort of physical preparedness, training, or confrontation is quickly becoming unacceptable.

We have seen this from extra sentences or harsher treatment doled out to martial artists in self-defense cases in court. We have seen it in how sports like MMA, boxing or even wrestling are being declared "barbaric" and have come under increasing legislative pressure or even outright banning. We have seen it in how simple fistfights or confrontations that would have been forgotten twenty years ago now involve significant criminal and civil liability. We have also increasingly seen it in the attitudes of everyday people who attach moral qualities to taking karate or having a pocketknife. (I actually saw this once in a cutlery store. A woman wouldn't touch the defense knives - they were "evil". Of course, her giant kitchen shears that could tear through my heart like tissue paper were perfectly fine.) Paradoxically, as we've become more divorced from the reality of daily violence, we've become increasingly afraid of it, even for "good" purposes like self-defense. The only exception I can think of to this trend are rape-defense courses for women, and even these are frowned upon if they go "too far".

Now, would I ever want to "water down" what I study or cripple my ability to defend myself in extremity? Never. But be prepared folks, it is only a matter of time. Our ability to study arts like these will be gone one day, I think. Or, the penalties for actually using them in real life will be so severe that it will effectively prevent everyday people from learning them.

[Sanchin-J]

There's no "evilness" in the martial art itself, its designed to do what it does, granted you have to realize that it's the individual using it that defines what exactly the martial art does. There is nothing wrong with learning and practicing lethal techniques at all, it doesn't mean you have to use them, it just means if you have no other choice, those options are available to you.

It's all about the individual and situation they are in, to take the higher damage or lethal force techniques out of an art because of their potential to do serious damage or kill someone is wrong. If I were you, I'd ask the instructors why they haven't taken out strikes to the throat, eyes and head all together as well then. Any one of the fundamental strikes if applied correctly can do just as much damage or kill an opponent.

It almost sounds like they are adjusting their particular style to fit a competition environment where there are rules and what not. If that's the case, then they aren't teaching Self Defense any more, they are teaching techniques to be used in a sport like boxing or kick boxing.

[kaizasosei]

the more ways you know how to really hurt someone, the more you have to be careful. the more weakspots and possible techniques you see, the more clumsy life will become.
to hurt or to kill is not that difficult. even a fool can do it if he puts his mind to it. i think that, to defend yourself without making things worse with excessive violence is a worthwhile goal for martial artists. if you want to be a killer, there are less artsy forms of violence. but martial arts is supposed to be art. art is a form of free expression. in actuality, it doesnt even require explaination.

i myself have noticed, that many people, dont know the strength of the techniques or even their own stregth. that can be dangerous. i have seen people pull moves and spared with people that seemed to me to be trying to really do some nasty damage. usualy as things go, people have ways of dealing and mostly evade, but if any of those moves were to actually succeed, could have devastating results. why though? it's just sparing...i have a hard time keeping in control with those situations, but i find ways.
i think it's good to be concious of very ones actions.
sometimes, i imagine that all people are kings, gods or innocent children. i like to treat everyone equally. imagine how much care you would have to take though if you were to provide service to a god or a king.
so also in reverse, if someone treats you any other way than good, you can easily see it.
there all all kinds of dangers in this world. we need to help each other out as much as possible. - if there is a soul or some kind of grander scheme of justice, then consider this advice selfdefense for the soul. because the evil and goodness are within all of us. we are free to act as we see fit.

j

[YoungMan]

I agree-martial arts techniques in themselves are not evil. It becomes a question of how these techniques are used. A martial arts technique is simply a part of your body doing a physical action that could conceivably hurt or kill another person.
Much like using a gun, practicing a martial art is itself not immoral or evil. All you are doing is thrusting a part of your body into the air.
Having said that, it is the instructor's responsibility to make sure that those who are learning from him/her learn to apply those techniques in a responsible manner, with respect for the pain and death they may potentially inflict on another human being.
If you have a student who is wantonly inflicting pain on other people because he wants to see if his technique works (and those people do exist), the techniques themselves are still not evil. It is our mindset that needs work, and the Instructor's job to ensure the student knows this is unacceptable.