Alarm bells

[Touch Of Death]

I have to side with Moose on this one. Just looking at the four things you mentioned, which I don't wholeheartedly agree are what martial arts are necessarily about, I already see problems with children. Most children lack three of the things you mentioned, not that there aren't adults that lack the same traits, but children lack them on a more consistant level. Their attitude rarely has the level of maturity needed to learn even the basics of some arts, there logic is usually not developed enough to understand the reasons behind certain actions and motivations behind concepts, and their bodies are not developed enough to perform certain tasks that are required in certain arts. The basics I think many students can learn, but I could probly teach most basic techniques to a monkey. I don't think basketball involves the moral decisions that the arts require. I practice arts that teach very damaging and dangerous moves right from the start and I wouldn't want a child to know these concepts because most childten can't be trusted with a match. There are techniques in the arts I train that inflict damage during practice, damage that could stunt the growth of or damage the development of a child's body. I think there are certain arts and levels of arts that shouldn't be taught until the four things you mentioned are already firmly inbedded in the lifestyle of a youth.

I do understand the idea of using the arts to educate children about things like fitness, attitude, ect. but I also believe in teaching certain arts in very traditional ways that can't be diluted to the mentality and abilities of a child.

No, you are proving my point. You haven't extracted basic motion from specialized moves. That is why you are fretting about morals. Secondly what other things do you think the MAs are about? I'd love to hear it. And thirdly, children to me a are people under, say, sixteen years old, and you two seem to be talking about four year olds or something. Before we argue further on the issue Id like to hear what age group you are refering to. :asian:
Sean
PS who said anything about teaching chidren in traditional ways?

 

[OULobo]

No, you are proving my point. You haven't extracted basic motion from specialized moves. That is why you are fretting about morals. Secondly what other things do you think the MAs are about? I'd love to hear it. And thirdly, children to me a are people under, say, sixteen years old, and you two seem to be talking about four year olds or something. Before we argue further on the issue Id like to hear what age group you are refering to. :asian:
Sean
PS who said anything about teaching chidren in traditional ways?

Well, I said something about teaching children in traditional ways. I believe that certain arts should be taught in traditional ways that children couldn't handle and those teachers have the right to decline teaching children without being accused of lacking a prioritization of techniques. Some arts are inseparable from and based in concepts that are not appropriate for children. I don't think that children have the maturity for say, systems based on knife and that require knife usage as a "basic" training tool. Many adults feel it is irresponsible and dangerous to give a child a fighting knife, and much more so to train him in how to grievously injure someone with it. In my opinion this is applicable all the way to the age of 13 or so. Some modern arts require training in firearms and without examining the moral issues of children and guns, the legal issues alone restrict the participation of children.

As for what martial arts is about, I don't have more to offer, instead I have to offer that the things listed are not necessarily "what martial arts are about". Many arts differ in the what attitude is desirable and some directly oppose the requirments or recommendations of the law. Logic is also not a necessary, albeit, desirable trait of the MAs. I have seen many practitioners and instructors that have trouble figuring out how to vote, but they can block most of what you throw at them.

Finally, I think morals are more than something to "fret" about when deciding anything to teach children. They are a deciding factor in chosen action and a major influence in responsibility. Entrusting the knowledge of the arts is something that requires resposibility from the practitioner in their actions and from the teacher in who is ready for the art not necessarily just the technique.

 

[Rich Parsons]

You are perfectly welcome to open up a seperate account for the billing agency and these billing agencies provide insurance for both students and instructors. The guy only looks at your info long enough to stuff it in an envelope and if you will notice your routing numbers and bank info are on every check you write; think of that next time you pay for gas at a Seven Eleven and hand it off to some drug addicted cashier. :uhyeah:
Sean :asian:

T'o'D,

As I Agree that the information is there. Yet there is no authorization implicit or explicit other than the amount on that chack. If you sign for electronic payment, usually there is some form of authorization either signature or online confirmation.

And just because alarm bells ring does nto mean the person is the most evil i the world. It jsut means buyer beware.
:asian:

 

[Touch Of Death]

Well, I said something about teaching children in traditional ways. I believe that certain arts should be taught in traditional ways that children couldn't handle and those teachers have the right to decline teaching children without being accused of lacking a prioritization of techniques. Some arts are inseparable from and based in concepts that are not appropriate for children. I don't think that children have the maturity for say, systems based on knife and that require knife usage as a "basic" training tool. Many adults feel it is irresponsible and dangerous to give a child a fighting knife, and much more so to train him in how to grievously injure someone with it. In my opinion this is applicable all the way to the age of 13 or so. Some modern arts require training in firearms and without examining the moral issues of children and guns, the legal issues alone restrict the participation of children.

As for what martial arts is about, I don't have more to offer, instead I have to offer that the things listed are not necessarily "what martial arts are about". Many arts differ in the what attitude is desirable and some directly oppose the requirments or recommendations of the law. Logic is also not a necessary, albeit, desirable trait of the MAs. I have seen many practitioners and instructors that have trouble figuring out how to vote, but they can block most of what you throw at them.

Finally, I think morals are more than something to "fret" about when deciding anything to teach children. They are a deciding factor in chosen action and a major influence in responsibility. Entrusting the knowledge of the arts is something that requires resposibility from the practitioner in their actions and from the teacher in who is ready for the art not necessarily just the technique.

Its obvious your defenitions for attitude, logic, basics, and fitness differ from mine. For instance attitude is the arrangement of your body or your opponents body. It is your/ and your opponent's mental position or feeling as reguards to enviornment, situation, predicament, or each other. My point is that not only does attitude not nessessarily mean your desire to kill or what ever some art proposes it is, but transends any given Martial philosophy to the point point of being a basic life lesson. That means even a knife art could spend years honing these children before ever handing them a live blade or face off in any sort of combat senerio. Sports, in general, sprang combat training. I say again your specialization is just that, a specialization. Your desire to shut people out, is such that you want other organizations to instill life lessons before you ever meet the student. That is fine, but if the instructor took the time to develop a childrens program, he would have a childrens program, pure and simple. So I ask you, why "should" an art be introduced at a hypercomplex-aboveyourhead level?
Sean

 

[Black Bear]

Teaching children requires different kinds of skills, because they're developmentally at a different level. Cognitively, socio-emotionally, physically, morally.

I do child psych assessments, so people think I'll be good at teaching children. How NOT the truth! I suck! I can handle them one-on-one, not in a classroom setting. My expertise on children is mainly on inter- and intraindividual differences, and special ed adaptation. When the parents, teacher, and I put our heads together, they come away with some useful stuff that helps them teach the kid better, but that's synergy (of all of us solving a problem), not osmosis (from me to them)!

When it comes to teaching, I'd way rather teach adults (or at least adolescents) than children. It's just not me. Partly ability, partly interest and personality.

I have a question for y'all: when you teach children MA, what do you think is the purpose or goal? And why does MA serve at least some of those goals better than, say, little league soccer, puppet therapy, or boy scouts?

 

[OULobo]

Its obvious your defenitions for attitude, logic, basics, and fitness differ from mine. For instance attitude is the arrangement of your body or your opponents body. It is your/ and your opponent's mental position or feeling as reguards to enviornment, situation, predicament, or each other. My point is that not only does attitude not nessessarily mean your desire to kill or what ever some art proposes it is, but transends any given Martial philosophy to the point point of being a basic life lesson. That means even a knife art could spend years honing these children before ever handing them a live blade or face off in any sort of combat senerio. Sports, in general, sprang combat training. I say again your specialization is just that, a specialization. Your desire to shut people out, is such that you want other organizations to instill life lessons before you ever meet the student. That is fine, but if the instructor took the time to develop a childrens program, he would have a childrens program, pure and simple. So I ask you, why "should" an art be introduced at a hypercomplex-aboveyourhead level?
Sean

Some arts are traditionally taught in ways and in an order that is inappropriate for children right off the bat. If the instructor chooses to alter the art to accomodate children, that is fine and great for those kids. If the instructor, however wishes to continue to teach in a traditional way, perhaps in order to maintain the historical integrity of the art, that is his choice, and again he should not be attacked for teaching the way he was taught. Not all arts are about growing "good" people, attracting more students or teaching modern defense tactics. The fact that these arts don't choose these pathes doesn't negate their merits. It seems that you are sending the message that teaching children is your way and your way is the only way worth a nugget. Knife training, fyi, is not a specialization in some arts, it is a step that must be taken to reach the other areas of the art; a gateway, if you will, to other arenas of the art. As for the hyper complex question, the answer could be "why should it not be", or it could be "because that's how some people like it", or how bout "because that's how the instructor was taught", how bout " because that's how the instructor likes to teach". Pick any of the above, either way it doesn't nessessarily negate the effectiveness or merit of the system.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Some arts are traditionally taught in ways and in an order that is inappropriate for children right off the bat. If the instructor chooses to alter the art to accomodate children, that is fine and great for those kids. If the instructor, however wishes to continue to teach in a traditional way, perhaps in order to maintain the historical integrity of the art, that is his choice, and again he should not be attacked for teaching the way he was taught. Not all arts are about growing "good" people, attracting more students or teaching modern defense tactics. The fact that these arts don't choose these pathes doesn't negate their merits. It seems that you are sending the message that teaching children is your way and your way is the only way worth a nugget. Knife training, fyi, is not a specialization in some arts, it is a step that must be taken to reach the other areas of the art; a gateway, if you will, to other arenas of the art. As for the hyper complex question, the answer could be "why should it not be", or it could be "because that's how some people like it", or how bout "because that's how the instructor was taught", how bout " because that's how the instructor likes to teach". Pick any of the above, either way it doesn't nessessarily negate the effectiveness or merit of the system.

I never said the art didn't have worth if it didn't have a children or women's program. I'm saying they haven't taken the time to develop a childrens or womens program. Sheesh, don't get so defensive. By the way, Logic has nothing to do with writting a check or doing your finances. It is, once again, a way of thinking.
Sean

 

[OULobo]

I never said the art didn't have worth if it didn't have a children or women's program. I'm saying they haven't taken the time to develop a childrens or womens program. Sheesh, don't get so defensive. By the way, Logic has nothing to do with writting a check or doing your finances. It is, once again, a way of thinking.
Sean

Right, sorry, I get a little jumpy sometimes. I think you are probly right about the reason many schools don't allow children being about the time, patients and organization it takes to cater a program to their needs and abilities.