Satire means a joke, when I said it was satirical it means it's full of jokes. Perhaps Santa is hiding it in crooked Hillary's email servers!
Disagree...experience is what I go by. So, no. It would be God Of Gaps if there is no personal experience and knowledge. I am pretty knowledgeable in the fact, that I would never be concerned with rules in combat.
Their are always rules in any conflict, even war has rules of engagement. Not only morally but legally, if you go overboard, straight to jail you go!
Of course, if you go overboard. But, rules are fluid in the lives of men. The war comment for rules, I won't even engage in.
It's satire because it's obviously untrue.... Just like that conspiracy website..... And the law dictionary story. " satire /ˈsatʌɪə/ Learn to pronounce noun the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. "the crude satire seems to be directed at the fashionable protest singers of the time" "
Ah...you meant the Hillary comment... But, as for the black law, don't worry when I thoroughly research it, I will admit to the mistake...if it was satire, great.
I really don't care if you're impressed. You are flat-out wrong. Let's recap the facts of this discussion. You've slated MMA and UFC fighters as not being as good as "real martial artists" or some such nonsense. You've been called out on this foolishness by basically everyone here, and instead of rethinking your position in light of significant contrary opinion, you doubled down and essentially rehashed the "too deadly for the ring" argument that hasn't held water since the 90s. You then have to be educated on what moves of yours would actually be banned under the ruleset you continue to slate, which turns out to be basically nothign that you cited as being important to you. Then you decide to go on the offensive, not by actually attacking people but just by becoming as much of an annoyance as you can. My advice to you is simple: grow up. You are acting like a child playing at being an awesome fighter, but in all likelihood you wouldn't survive for 30 seconds with any current UFC fighter or even an amateur with more than a couple of fights.
This assertion was first made more than a century after the first edition (first published in 1891, but the “joke” assertion, even if it was actually made by the family and that story is not a hoax itself, was first made by an heir in 2003). The idea that the terms in there were made up as jokes is concretely contradicted by the fact that the first six editions has a case law citation for every term in the dictionary. In other words, the dictionary wasn’t making up new terms at all, but collecting terms already in legal use. How could that actually be a joke?
If it's irrelevent why did you try and come up with a list of options you erroneously thought wouldn't be allowed in mma, to show how limited and bound by rules it is compared to your anything goes karate, but in so doing actually comedically showed that you don't actually understand what modern mma is? What some people fail to realise is how mma and a 'real self defence situation' differ isn't so much what techniques can/will/won't be used (although that is a valid area to discuss but something people can overly fixate on) it's the other things that come into play. There are different success criteria for a start. You aren't trying to 'win' a self defence situation for example. A straight punch is a straight punch. You try to land one in mma to cause enough concussion that the ref stops the fight. You try to land one in a self defence situation in order to create an opportunity to escape and stay safe. The technique isn't the important part to think about when discussing the two in relation to each other.
I never said that anything I do, is to deadly...but their are things I can't do in the ring, that I can do in real life. That is what makes them different. And is really my only point. The truth is, you nor anyone on here knows how I train. But, on the flip side, I haven't trained in MMA. Oh, I listened to a few as a matter of fact, Grond, described the reasoning for the hands to be dropped in order, to draw the opponent in, basic plan of attack, but he gave a good description and the reasoning behind this, I am in agreement with. I myself, have been to a few (spectator)UFC matches in the early 2000's, a traveling job afforded the opportunity for me to do that, and enjoyed them. I am not completely clueless. But, @Grond peaked an interest with his description. So, here is an open mind, if you are willing to recommend the best video examples of training for MMA, I will watch them, and give my own take concerning them. One more thing, we have a couple of MMA places here and I will check them out. See, if it has evolved and I have to admit, that I haven't paid much attention since mid 2000. My advice to you, is you assume to much. An adult, thinks things over. Returns to the points, that peaks their interest and pursues that direct course. Because " Everybody says so" is appealing to authority. Personal experience is necessary, it's been a while and I have decided to take a new look.
That's like saying you haven't followed aviation since Sopwiths fought Fokkers, and wondering if it's evolved at all since then.
Which would be at least a slightly reasonable point if you then cited examples of things that were crucial to your personal system of self defence or fighting, but your given examples were then all within the rules except for one finishing technique (that would only do you good if you had already overwhelmed your opponent to the point were you were standing over their head with a free shot). So, if you have a point here, you badly need to restate it, because right now you are making a point that has been proved moot time and time again. But we have seen a video of your instructor demonstrating some fairly shoddy grappling, and you have been in this thread denigrating athletes demonstrating techniques that are working under extreme resistance, so we can infer something from those points. "Everyone says so" would actually be an appeal to numbers rather than authority. Appealing to authority is a fallacy only where you appeal to an expert outside their field. E.g. "Wakefield says vaccines cause autism, therefore vaccines cause autism". Wakefield is a discredited source, no longer an expert in a field, therefore this would be fallacious. On the other hand, "my doctor in good standing says that vaccines have no link to autism, therefore I'm getting my vaccines done to avoid diseases" is a perfectly reasonable approach to knowledge-gathering. As such, my claim was better translated as "this community, which is made up of experienced martial artists from around the world representing a wide variety of backgrounds, generally accepts that the UFC is an excellent demonstration of top-class martial artist athletes pitting their skills against one another". Citing that isn't an appeal to authority fallacy, but a citation of expert consensus.
I too haven’t followed MMA since the early days. (Though I imagine the sport’s moved on hugely since then.)
As for the hoax...as of now, it will be filed under...I don't know. It will have to wait until I get in contact with Reuters.
