I'm don't know what you mean by 'milk toast'.
I'm also not sure if we are talking about the same thing. My point is that all the martial arts I know have 'deadly' techniques ( most techniques are variations on the same one in reality) however the method of teaching can determine whether those techniques are seen as 'deadly' or not. Look at punches, for easiness let's go the boxing way and call it a 'cross', now it can be taught punching into air as an exercise for fitness, it can be taught as a pulled punch as in no touch sparring or it can be taught as in boxing as a potential KO. The punch is the same one but the method of teaching is different so is the perception of the punch.
Hapkido can be taught in different ways if people wanted to, the art remains the same one so the 'deadliness' is down to the attitude of those teaching not the art itself. It's the point many make about TKD as well, taught as an Olympic sport is one way, taught as fitness for kids it's another way and taught as a deadly maiming art is another yet all the techniques are the same, the only difference is the way humans teach... the human attitude makes an art deadly or not.
Toast in milk gets soggy and lacks form or strength. Applied to a person it means someone who is weak and/or non-aggressive.
I think I see what you mean, and in general I can agree. Any martial art can surely be used in a brutal manner. I suspect in times past, it was expected that most would be intended to hurt of kill an opponent. In more gentile society these days, that would generally be frowned upon unless used in self defense against a deadly attack.
Hapkido can be taught in different ways if people wanted to, the art remains the same one so the 'deadliness' is down to the attitude of those teaching not the art itself.
Surprisingly, there are techniques that are known to be able to cause death, but few of the techniques are deadly. And I never said
Hapkido was taught as a deadly art. Some techniques would no doubt be considered brutal, but not all or even most, deadly. But most techniques are intended to manipulate joints. That is why I suggest that Hapkido is more brutal; the intent of most techniques is to cause pain and/or damage.
Granted some can be stopped before a joint is dislocated, in fact that has to be with a practice opponent. But in a real fight, doing so would leave one at a greater disadvantage to attack.
That's again down to the human element, it's the manner of teaching not the martial art itself that makes it dangerous. You could have those same instructors with their outlook teach any style of martial art and have the same effect, you could have instructors who teach pulling punches, no touch sparring etc teach Hapkido and they would make it a very 'soft style'. There's nothing in Hapkido that is more dangerous than any other martial art, it is the way of teaching ie the human element that makes it more 'deadly'.
You are talking of teaching methods not the style itself.
I think that is called Aikido.
And that is not a put down to Aikido. But from what I have seen, Aikido just wants an attacker to go away. If they get hurt during a technique, oh well. But the intent is just to defend until the attacker gets tired and leaves. If I am wrong in that, I hope some of our Aikido practitioners will step up and correct me.
Again, let me point out that I never said Hapkido was a "deadly" martial art. You are correct that most if not all martial arts can be used in a deadly manner.
