Learning to take strikes

[pdg]

It is in Singapore. It even says who they are ..Kapap Singapore.

That was what my assumption was based upon, but it's not exactly always a safe assumption...

People attach place names to businesses all the time, even though their actual location bears no resemblance.

I mean, there's a "Punhill groceries" a few miles from me, which is quite a large distance from Nepal.

That's one example of the multitude of shops in this area that have a location (or allude to such) in their name - places all over Europe Asia, Africa and South America.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

There's nothing to argue about. This is a scummy thing to do. If you actually got off the couch and got into a gym you'd see this is completely wrong in a martial arts gym.

There are things to argue about. In your perspective, it is scummy. thats down to both your culture and personal morals. To some people as soon as you can hold a weapon you take responsibility for figthing, in a similar way to as soon as you can do any form of manual labour you start working or are expected to.

It is a neutral argument, i can fully see some situations where this would in deed be apt and has been apt historically.

 

[Gweilo]

There are things to argue about. In your perspective, it is scummy. thats down to both your culture and personal morals. To some people as soon as you can hold a weapon you take responsibility for figthing, in a similar way to as soon as you can do any form of manual labour you start working or are expected to.

It is a neutral argument, i can fully see some situations where this would in deed be apt and has been apt historically.

To save you googling anymore, I just found the following link, striking a child was made illegal in Singapore and other eastern countries, unless it is corparal punishment, defined as slapping or canning, some traditional practices of historical beleifs are also still legal, but I doubt anything in the video is not covered by these laws.

Spanking children illegal in 43 countries

 

[Deleted member 39746]

To save you googling anymore, I just found the following link, striking a child was made illegal in Singapore and other eastern countries, unless it is corparal punishment, defined as slapping or canning, some traditional practices of historical beleifs are also still legal, but I doubt anything in the video is covered by these laws.

Spanking children illegal in 43 countries

Then this is firmly lodged in a ethical discussion now and not a legal one. Cheers for that.

 

[Tez3]

That was what my assumption was based upon, but it's not exactly always a safe assumption...

People attach place names to businesses all the time, even though their actual location bears no resemblance.

I mean, there's a "Punhill groceries" a few miles from me, which is quite a large distance from Nepal.

That's one example of the multitude of shops in this area that have a location (or allude to such) in their name - places all over Europe Asia, Africa and South America.

It says in the text underneath that it's the Kapap Academy Singapore, I checked up on their website on their media page they say they have a You Tube channel kapapsg. https://www.kapapsingapore.com/video-gallery

Go to You Tube and you will find the video from the OP also this one with the same female instructor.

 

[pdg]

To save you googling anymore, I just found the following link, striking a child was made illegal in Singapore and other eastern countries, unless it is corparal punishment, defined as slapping or canning, some traditional practices of historical beleifs are also still legal, but I doubt anything in the video is not covered by these laws.

Spanking children illegal in 43 countries

That's not at all how I interpret the article.

It says:

"As of today, Singapore and other Asian countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, China, Japan and Taiwan have NOT banned corporal punishment of children, which is defined as spanking, hitting, and caning"

(Caps and bold added by me)

There is nothing at all to suggest any form of striking or hitting a child is illegal there in any way.

There's even a list of the countries where corporal punishment has been outlawed.

 

[Gweilo]

Then this is firmly lodged in a ethical discussion now and not a legal one. Cheers for that.

Read it properly, there is Nothing in that viseo that could be covered by the the historical beleifs, seeing as Kepap was invented in the 1930's.

 

[Gweilo]

That's not at all how I interpret the article.

It says:

"As of today, Singapore and other Asian countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, China, Japan and Taiwan have NOT banned corporal punishment of children, which is defined as spanking, hitting, and caning"

(Caps and bold added by me)

There is nothing at all to suggest any form of striking or hitting a child is illegal there in any way.

There's even a list of the countries where corporal punishment has been outlawed.

That article was from a while ago try this one

Look back 2019: More child abuse cases probed amid growing awareness

 

[Tez3]

Disregarding for a moment the very problematical hitting of a young person, to me as an instructor that isn't accustoming anyone to being hit, it is teaching them to be passive when hit. I would want a student to be able to instinctively defend themselves not just cover up and take it but actively find a way to stop the attack or escape or whatever was needed.
If you need to accustom someone to being hit, then sparring is enough, being passive should never be an option.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Read it properly, there is Nothing in that viseo that could be covered by the the historical beleifs, seeing as Kepap was invented in the 1930's.

Im not really having a legal argument anyway. i jsut meant you posting that made the legal aspect irrelivent. (aspect would be a better word than argument)

None of us here are really in a position anyway, as its pending what the courts rule if they get charged, and there could be case law and presdients etc that you dont know etc. None of us have any legistive power in Singapore nor are a judge/jury in it. I am now going to nope out of that one as its a thin line from me going full political in this regard.

 

[skribs]

Im not really having a legal argument anyway. i jsut meant you posting that made the legal aspect irrelivent. (aspect would be a better word than argument)

None of us here are really in a position anyway, as its pending what the courts rule if they get charged, and there could be case law and presdients etc that you dont know etc. None of us have any legistive power in Singapore nor are a judge/jury in it. I am now going to nope out of that one as its a thin line from me going full political in this regard.

Quit trying to appear smarter or more enlightened than everyone else. You're just an armchair warrior. In most cases, your ideas are dangerous to the person you're giving advice to. Now you're playing devil's advocate for child abusers. If there was ever a time for you to grow up and learn your place, the time is now.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Quit trying to appear smarter or more enlightened than everyone else. You're just an armchair warrior. In most cases, your ideas are dangerous to the person you're giving advice to. Now you're playing devil's advocate for child abusers. If there was ever a time for you to grow up and learn your place, the time is now.

I will humour you again just this once, i am going to take the liberty and ignore anything that isnt relivent to the thread like personal comments etc.

And for staff who might read, i dont know if i will dip into rule break territory so just give me leniency this once.


Unless they have been convicted, they arent child abusers legally speaking. Morally speaking it is up to debate if said action is abuse or not, i am partaking in said argument for if it can definitively be called abuse, my stance is clearly no. It cannot be definitvely called abuse.

I can think of a few reasons why having somone do said drill on somone might be useful or a good lesson, one and the leading point in my view on the matter is violence happens to under 18's (hence forth know as children), by both children and adults. You might be in good footing if you can defend yourself getting battered by 2 adults.

My second leading point for it not being definnitivly immoral is, it is subjective and based on your own standards of morality. There are cultrual norms for how to treat children in each culture and they vary greatly, adding into the inidivudalised nature of morality.

This is preluded by what ever parties that need to consent consented to it and it wont cause adverse life altering/long injuries, and i would say is lawfully allowed. (i care not for a proper legal argument and thats politics anyway)

An undelrying issue here is, i dont know anything about said school or person, the age of them, if consent was given by all who needs it, all is shown is 2 adults hitting a apparant child for 27 seconds as a form of initiation.

Do you have a rebuttal to the stated points in there? And this is more than likely going to be a "agree to disagree" subject, you arent generally going to agree with a action that is taboo to you.

Now, if you want to know my PERSONAL view and argue on that i will gladly post it seperately. Just let me know.

 

[drop bear]

Of course you read every one of those reports before you commented.

Didn't even skim them. I assumed they showed that head trauma is bad for you.

Which I agree with.

Ok. Quickly did skim the reports. Cycling is apparently the real villian in this equation and I couldn't find a difference between head trauma for over 16s and under 16s.

 

[Tez3]

I can think of a few reasons why having somone do said drill on somone might be useful or a good lesson, one and the leading point in my view on the matter is violence happens to under 18's (hence forth know as children), by both children and adults. You might be in good footing if you can defend yourself getting battered by 2 adults.

Actually you are wrong again. having someone punch you repeatedly while you do nothing is pointless. Any idiot can stand there and be punched. We don't want our students to be idiots, we want people who can defend themselves. Just about everyone and their dog knows that violence happens, you need to stand there and be punched to know that duh.

My second leading point for it not being definnitivly immoral is, it is subjective and based on your own standards of morality. There are cultrual norms for how to treat children in each culture and they vary greatly, adding into the inidivudalised nature of morality.

And that's the same argument that some use for not stopping female genital mutilation, 'it's cultural, it's their standards' etc etc ad nauseum.

 

[skribs]

@Rat

Quit being a blowhard. Especially when you're advocating for child abuse. This isn't "agree to disagree". It's a matter of child safety.

You have no idea what constitutes good or bad training, because you refuse to train. Normally that would be a fact that only hurts you. Yet you come here and offer training advice, most of which is wrong and will get people hurt. That's the only reason I don't have you on ignore. Because the people you advise need to know how wrong you are, and how following your advice might get them injured, killed, or in real legal trouble. You think you're smart, and so you post like you're an authority, but you know nothing of any real substance in martial arts.

Now you're trying to make excuses for child abusers. The absolute worst kind of evil. You're sick in the head, and you need help. And you need to stop pretending that you're this supreme knowledge holder of martial arts. Because you're not. I don't know why so many people on this site put up with you. Your posts are downright dangerous.

I'm not going to argue your individual points, because the place they are coming from is so misguided it's not worth my time to pick it apart piece by piece. I will pick one part:

all is shown is 2 adults hitting a apparant child for 27 seconds as a form of initiation.

If you don't understand what is wrong with that, you should stop posting. Because if anyone sees your post and hurts a child because of it, that's on you. There is no legitimate reason for this kind of training. The fact that you don't understand that is why you should stop pretending to know things about martial arts. Go take some classes. Learn some actual martial arts. Not just what some reporter understands when they write an article, or someone like you understands when they make a wikipedia entry. Not what you see in kung fu movies and read in history books from historians who have never taken a class.

Go take an actual class. And not just once a month for three months. Not just halfway through white belt. Take a class and stick with it for a few years. Don't quit unless it's to change to another class. Learn what techniques work and don't work, and how to make them work. Learn what training methods work and don't work - not based on your initial opinion, but based on training for years and seeing what benefits those methods bring you. See what is done in martial arts so they can be learned safely, even though the art is capable of dangerous things.

Then, and only then, should you start giving people advice. This advice wouldn't be based on a fantasy that you've created for yourself. This advice would be based on reality and experience. You'll be wrong a lot less. You'll actually give good advice. But you have to know what you're talking about first. As for right now, you clearly don't.

This post is another example of you being an armchair warrior, trying to act like you know more than trained martial artists. You seem to want to prove that you're the smartest person on this forum. You always have to argue. You always have to try and prove that everyone else in the thread is wrong about something that only you seem to know. But without actual experience, how much can you know?

Like I said, I'd have you on ignore, but your posts are too dangerous to be left unrefuted. I strongly urge you to take some classes so you can learn. I also strongly urge you to stop pretending to be an expert until you have the training to back up what you say.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Actually you are wrong again. having someone punch you repeatedly while you do nothing is pointless. Any idiot can stand there and be punched. We don't want our students to be idiots, we want people who can defend themselves. Just about everyone and their dog knows that violence happens, you need to stand there and be punched to know that duh.

Well, context i missing for this, but its a intitiation, for what ever reason they do it. I am at this point refusing to judge them on it. Anyone can indeed stand there and be punched, not everyone can actively block though (which is what the person did if i recall correctly)


I am only noting it as a decent drill for when its done for drill reasons, as there is some use in getting roughed up a little. As a initiation it is usually just a will test or as stated a toguhness one or to see where you stand etc.

also, if anyone does find a context and a clear reason for why said school does that initiation or details on it, please mention me and share it.

 

[skribs]

Anyone can indeed stand there and be punched, not everyone can actively block though (which is what the person did if i recall correctly)

He didn't. He took a lot of the blows.

The fact anyone can stand there and be punched is why this is such a bad idea. Even if it's just for initiation, that's a lot of brain trauma he's enduring for his initiation.

 

[Tez3]

I am only noting it as a decent drill for when its done for drill reasons,

Not at all a decent drill as I said. No one should be standing passively while others hit them.

 

[skribs]

Not at all a decent drill as I said. No one should be standing passively while others hit them.

It's great for a movie scene. I can't remember the name of the movie, it was a Thai martial arts film. The main character was at a bar with his instructor, and his instructor picked a fight with several other guys. The character then had to go for 3 rounds (called out by his instructor):

1. Don't get hit
2. Take all the hits
3. Hit back and knock them all out

It was a great movie scene. But that's where this type of drill should stay.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Not at all a decent drill as I said. No one should be standing passively while others hit them.

The one in question in the video being a initiation is probbly for nothing more than to show dedication/rite of passage. In fact it is for nothing more than that. But if you look into some of the other types, you dont get to break out of being stuck in a corner or on the floor getting beaten all the time, nor strike back. Actively blocking when its the only thing you can do, doesnt seem passive to me, plus you loose the hopelessness and keep going drive if you turn it into another "dont get here at all costs, or immediately break out" drill. Train for the worst situation possible sometimes.


if you dont fundementally think its good, its going to be a agree to disagree situation as i see some use in "beat down drills", and they arent meant to be done often anyway, or quantity scales with intensity of it. There are a lot of varibles in how to do this sort of type and it depends on what you are training for.