(L) Bamboo Blade

[taelrak]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

The problem isn't that the thrust was illegal. It wasn't. Everyone agrees with that.

The problem is that Tama, herself, was forbidden to use it in such circumstances. For good reasons: her thrust is too powerful. And the ban is still active, which is why she still went through the checklist (male, experienced) the last time she used it.

Moreover, she used it in anger, to "punish" her opponent. That's when she's most likely to make a mistake.

Kojiro may not have been much of an example to his students in terms of maturity or whatever, but that doesn't absolve Tama. She should still show more restraint. It's understandable that she didn't, and yes, the bully was dead wrong and whatever she got, she had coming. But Tama should still strive to be better than that.

That's irrelevant however, because whatever personal limitations she may have put on herself due to the suggestions of others are not morally or legally binding.

Sports can be dangerous, certain ones more than others. People enter into real matches with the knowledge (either actual or constructive) that they may get hurt, and consent on both sides is implied.

Moreover, there was no ultimate harm that resulted from the use of a perfectly legal move. Even if there were, it could well be the contributory negligence of her opponent in not putting on her equipment properly that resulted in it--which is certainly not Tama's fault (although I suppose if her opponent had died, people would find a way to attach some blame to Tama regardless, but that isn't this case)--under the presumption that with such padding properly in place and the move executed properly, no such harm could result--and we know that the move was executed properly.

Tama also certainly had no intent to kill or hurt her opponent, and it's very unclear that harm would have naturally arose from the use of that thrust under those circumstances--it's certainly NOT a substantial certainty. We do know that the move was not considered inappropriate in the context of the tournament. Since there was no harm at all either, we can say that absent any intent or recklessness or even negligence, there's nothing wrong with what she did.

The implied consent, the fully legal move, the absence of any intent, and the fact that the ultimate harm that resulted was practically nil reveals that it was perfectly fine. There's always a "chance" that certain moves or any move can result in injury--but when we're not being excessively risk-averse, people look to the resulting harm, and here there was none.

Furthermore, while certain people always try to teach balance and discipline, anger is a perfectly useful tool to channel into strength when you need to. You lose some control, but many people simply perform better with that extra impetus. Tama was not bound to obey her father's wishes absolutely--no one is, and while we can't be certain she understood or followed the rationale behind that order in the heat of her anger, what we do know is her opponent did NOT die.

It's one thing to say that she needs to learn responsibility to go along with her power, but so long as she has not abused her power, one can't quite make the claim that she doesn't have the requisite responsibility. Since the thrust is perfectly legal in a tournament and by implication within the acceptable bounds of safety for people reaching a certain level of skill, it's not an "abuse". While one can make the argument her anger clouds her judgment and thus lowers her skill below that acceptable threshold, there's no proof of that except mere speculation (certainly almost impossible to measure due to valuation problems), and to pin moral blame on someone with sheer speculation is by no means just.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by taelrak

That's irrelevant however, because whatever personal limitations she may have put on herself due to the suggestions of others are not morally or legally binding.

If her father, who's also her kendo master, tells her not to use a move because it's too dangerous, I'd say that yes, she is morally bound not to use it. In all teaching of martial arts, it is generally implied, or explicitly stated, that you are taught how to hurt others on the condition that you don't misuse that knowledge, or use it recklessly. And the teacher, not the pupil, gets to decide what is reckless or not. There is an "implied consent" there, too.

Sports can be dangerous, certain ones more than others. People enter into real matches with the knowledge (either actual or constructive) that they may get hurt, and consent on both sides is implied.

That's no excuse to go out of your way to endanger the other. Or yourself, for that matter.

Moreover, there was no ultimate harm that resulted from the use of a perfectly legal move. Even if there were, it could well be the contributory negligence of her opponent in not putting on her equipment properly that resulted in it--which is certainly not Tama's fault (although I suppose if her opponent had died, people would find a way to attach some blame to Tama regardless, but that isn't this case)--under the presumption that with such padding properly in place and the move executed properly, no such harm could result--and we know that the move was executed properly.

Yes. It went well. This time. Plenty of drink and drive without getting into an accident, too. Until they do.

Furthermore, while certain people always try to teach balance and discipline, anger is a perfectly useful tool to channel into strength when you need to. You lose some control, but many people simply perform better with that extra impetus. Tama was not bound to obey her father's wishes absolutely--no one is, and while we can't be certain she understood or followed the rationale behind that order in the heat of her anger, what we do know is her opponent did NOT die.

That's very nice if all you want is to win the match. Is Tama like that? It certainly wasn't what she was taught. She never even showed any interest in competing till she entered high school, and we all know why she joined the club, and why she sticks around. It never was about the medals.

Originally Posted by turk128

As for the thrusting the bully, Tama is going down the right road. On one side, Tama is confronting a new emotion (and doing a damn good job of it or else she wouldn't have stopped to check on the bully).

I'm not sure she did it out of concern... Though I guess it's possible.

On the other, this might actually traumatize the bully enough so that she stops and understands her wayward ways. If Tama hadn't channeled her emotions, she would have lost and not learn anything from it and the bully would have certainly continued with her ways. The bully is going down a stagnating path, Tama's blade/skill is the instrument of change (pretty obvious by now), and Tama's emotions is the will that guides her. It's not the lack of emotions that dictates how Tama grows as a person but how she deals with them.

BTW by saying you don't care for the bully or how she turns out, you very much are walking down the dark side.

I'm not a very nice of forgiving person, and I don't pretend to be. But Tama's supposed to be better than me, too.

I might be reading a bit much into it, but I believe Tama views herself as an instrument of change (kinda obviouse with the anime she loves) and is especially emotional about this particular bully because she sees someone similar to herself but twisted. Also, the first to play mind games with her and her emotions.

Hah. No. She sees herself as a hero of justice. Tama Braver! Which is a dangerous way to see herself. It means she sees her "enemies" as cartoon monsters, not people.

[Wavedash]

Originally Posted by taelrak

There's always a "chance" that certain moves or any move can result in injury--but when we're not being excessively risk-averse, people look to the resulting harm, and here there was none.

...

It's one thing to say that she needs to learn responsibility to go along with her power, but so long as she has not abused her power, one can't quite make the claim that she doesn't have the requisite responsibility. Since the thrust is perfectly legal in a tournament and by implication within the acceptable bounds of safety for people reaching a certain level of skill, it's not an "abuse". While one can make the argument her anger clouds her judgment and thus lowers her skill below that acceptable threshold, there's no proof of that except mere speculation (certainly almost impossible to measure due to valuation problems), and to pin moral blame on someone with sheer speculation is by no means just.

You make several good points here. By the strict rules of the tournament she has not overstepped bounds. No one outside herself can reproach her for that. But I'd like to analyze a bit more what you said.

You make the argument that this situation should be judged by ends, that no harm no foul. That is valid, yet we must also consider the means. Recall that kendo is meant to provide a place for one to test himself and improve. Tamaki, by giving in to emotion, would be failing herself.

This need for self-reflection is at the heart of kendo. An experienced practitioner of a martial art would agree that to master oneself is to master others; indeed, there is probably no other way. The tournaments and contests are meant to be guideposts along the way, not the goal.

[taelrak]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

If her father, who's also her kendo master, tells her not to use a move because it's too dangerous, I'd say that yes, she is morally bound not to use it. In all teaching of martial arts, it is generally implied, or explicitly stated, that you are taught how to hurt others on the condition that you don't misuse that knowledge, or use it recklessly. And the teacher, not the pupil, gets to decide what is reckless or not. There is an "implied consent" there, too.

That's not what implied consent means. It simply refers to the fact that Tamaki would not be liable at all to her opponent if she caused reasonable injuries to her, insofar as you can't intentionally hurt someone who's willing to be hurt and expressed that consent by taking part in an activity where it's reasonably foreseeable that injuries could result.

For the teacher-student thing: there is perhaps an agreement that a student who enters a relationship with a teacher has some sort of duty to follow reasonable guidelines set out by the teacher, including not to harm others with this knowledge. The idea is that you can breach the agreement at anytime without fault if you're willing to forego whatever the teacher offers you (usually teachings) [and are willing to pay a certain amount if there's some sort of expectancy, but that doesn't apply in this case where her sensei isn't being paid by her].

However, servitudes and restrictions on use of such knowledge itself after leaving this sense-disciple relationship simply won't work, insofar as it's almost completely intangible--even more so than most intellectual property. To claim that such restrictions run with the knowledge in rem is at best highly sketchy.

That's no excuse to go out of your way to endanger the other. Or yourself, for that matter.

Sure it is. It may even be justification. Let's posit that you are allowed a range of behavior within a certain moral range before your actions are seen as unreasonable. We can also suggest for the moment that, kendo, having a long tradition and kendo tournaments having structure rules, are aware of what constitutes acceptable behavior in participants. It is not a stretch to come up with that a fully allowed and legal move as within those guidelines would be seen as quite reasonable. If so, then any such "endangerment" is fully acceptable.

Yes. It went well. This time. Plenty of drink and drive without getting into an accident, too. Until they do.

Drunk driving is an act that is viewed as wrong in and of itself. Tamaki's move is viewed as perfectly legal and fine.

However, the stiff penalties come only when there is actual harm caused. In a drunk driver causing an accident - there is harm caused. In Tamaki's case, there isn't.

Why don't we punish all drunk drivers for attempted murder - since they have no control of their actions on the road and thus it's only sheer lottery that some who get into accidents get a murder charge? It's because we do distinguish results, however inaccurate a measure it may be.

That's very nice if all you want is to win the match. Is Tama like that? It certainly wasn't what she was taught. She never even showed any interest in competing till she entered high school, and we all know why she joined the club, and why she sticks around. It never was about the medals.

That's true, but you're saying this as if anger and the desire to vindicate and punish are bad things. The point was merely that neither of those feelings in and of themselves without a corresponding result are innately bad.

Although society in generally doesn't encourage "self-help" in people who see injustices, that's not to say all such behavior is discouraged. Here, we have a girl who is stronger than the other deciding to punish the other using a fully legal move in a situation where serious bodily harm "may" be possible, but which did not happen. In fact, we can't even say that such bodily harm is substantially possible.

There is nothing wrong with using anger.
There is nothing wrong with punishing someone you don't like within accepted boundaries of the situation you're in or within societal norms.

I'm not saying ends justify the result, or that we should discount the fact that serious bodily harm could have occurred - but absent any real way to measure this, the ultimate result that occurred is probably the best indication we have.

You make the argument that this situation should be judged by ends, that no harm no foul. That is valid, yet we must also consider the means. Recall that kendo is meant to provide a place for one to test himself and improve. Tamaki, by giving in to emotion, would be failing herself.

This need for self-reflection is at the heart of kendo. An experienced practitioner of a martial art would agree that to master oneself is to master others; indeed, there is probably no other way. The tournaments and contests are meant to be guideposts along the way, not the goal.

I disagree about the emotion part. The ultimate goal is to "master" your emotions, not suppress them--there's a big difference. To master doesn't necessarily imply "control", but rather to develop a state of mind where such emotions flow and don't intrude. You're not supposed to give in to anger not by suppressing all your anger, which would be counterproductive, but by simply achieving a sense of inner awareness where the anger is just naturally flowing as part of yourself, in that it never existed to begin with.

I would suggest not that Tamaki is failing herself by giving into anger, but rather by allowing the anger to take is natural progression and riding the wave and reflecting, she is redirecting it and cultivating herself.

Or rather, if it were anyone but Tama, I'd suggest that. She's a bit too dopey for that

[Wavedash]

Originally Posted by taelrak

I disagree about the emotion part. The ultimate goal is to "master" your emotions, not suppress them--there's a big difference. To master doesn't necessarily imply "control", but rather to develop a state of mind where such emotions flow and don't intrude. You're not supposed to give in to anger not by suppressing all your anger, which would be counterproductive, but by simply achieving a sense of inner awareness where the anger is just naturally flowing as part of yourself, in that it never existed to begin with.

I would suggest not that Tamaki is failing herself by giving into anger, but rather by allowing the anger to take is natural progression and riding the wave and reflecting, she is redirecting it and cultivating herself.

I did not mean that emotions should be suppressed. As you said, they can be utilized. "But she let them take control of her," is the reading I'm getting from the other posters, and that's what I specifically referred to.

Failure in this instance is not the end. You constantly make mistakes and fail in kendo. My teacher once said he had never done any technique correctly in his entire life. As you may have implied, this failure is sort of a good thing... if she takes a lesson from it!

[taelrak]

Originally Posted by Wavedash

I did not mean that emotions should be suppressed. As you said, they can be utilized. "But she let them take control of her," is the reading I'm getting from the other posters, and that's what I specifically referred to.

Failure in this instance is not the end. You constantly make mistakes and fail in kendo. My teacher once said he had never done any technique correctly in his entire life. As you may have implied, this failure is sort of a good thing... if she takes a lesson from it!

Well, there's some ambiguity about that

In her anger, she made a decision that she will do what it takes to win that match in a way such as to punish her opponent. That anger gave her determination, but I wouldn't say she was controlled by it. It was a fully rational decision. It was not unreasonable under the circumstances. That her anger was a factor in her decision and but for her anger she wouldn't have made this decision is undeniable.

I see this as a very good thing. If she is not willing to give up that part of herself such that is willing to give it her all, she'll just always be held back by herself.

She didn't turn into a bully or anything. She's also not a vigilante that goes around taking justice into her own hands. She simply made a value judgment that her opponent should be taught a lesson, and gave her that lesson within the means of a structured and regulated environment--the match. Sure, kendo purists may well claim that the sanctity of a match should not be tainted by private vindication, but it's a much better medium than ganging up on the girl in some back alley and beating her to death After all, by using the match as a medium for her punishment, she is checked by the rules of the tournament, which means she wouldn't be able to cause any real serious injury.

I'm not saying that she's justified just because she followed the technical rules of the tournament. Rather, those rules are good indications of acceptable modes of behavior allowed in a kendo match, and by not violating them, her behavior is well within the range of acceptable behavior.

[Zanshun]

I don't think there is any issue with her using a thrust whatsoever, her coach only stood up and got upset after he was informed about her injury, I'm sure hes far more worried about Tama then anything else.

[Skane]

Originally Posted by taelrak

Drunk driving is an act that is viewed as wrong in and of itself. Tamaki's move is viewed as perfectly legal and fine.

However, the stiff penalties come only when there is actual harm caused. In a drunk driver causing an accident - there is harm caused. In Tamaki's case, there isn't.

Why don't we punish all drunk drivers for attempted murder - since they have no control of their actions on the road and thus it's only sheer lottery that some who get into accidents get a murder charge? It's because we do distinguish results, however inaccurate a measure it may be.

Oh for gravy's sake. Nobody is debating about the legality of the move. I think this point has been beaten to the ground pointlessly enough already. It is about Tamaki's motives and intentions. What happened to her checklist? What happened to her temper? What happened to her sportsmanship?

Perhaps drunk-driving is a flawed analogy. Try road-rage instead.

Also, the latter part of this argument of yours is flawed because of your very own opening sentence. Drunk-driving IS a crime, and it is a crime because it helps to prevent more serious accidents from happening. Again, must we wait until it is too late before Tamaki is educated on the right path?

Prevention is better than cure.

Cheers.

[X207]

imo konni got wat she deserved. although it might not have been the most moral descision it was perfectly legal and no one was hurt. its not like tama consistently pulls off those move as she usually goes for the men points. she'll just get scolded for pulling off that point and they'll move on. tama knew enuff restraint so that konni was unharmed and decided to offer her hand to help up konni.

[Onizuka-GTO]

so lets summaries the current groups:

1#: That Tamaki's action are justified because her opponent "deserves" it.
She was deceitful, evil and did not display the true soul of a Kenoga.
It was justice, and the end result validates the means.

The heart is what you should follow, burning passion can give you the power to do what must be done for the good of humanity.


2#: Tamaki's actions are legal and valid beyond measure by the rules of the competition and that she had the free Choice to use it. After all the a competition is to strive to do the best you can.
Thus when Tamaki chose to use that move it was in her right, and should not be penalised for it, she should not hold back and use her full strength within the context of the competition, do not be burden by the weak.

3#: While the moves are legal and that Tamaki is in a competition to show the best you can do, however it goes against the "Spirit" of her personal Bushi philosophy.
One must be true to one's self at all times, lease it makes a mockery of all the values you hold dear to yourself.
You disregard one principle when ever the situation calls for, then it won't be long until you will have no hesitation to break them all.

***************

Well i have to be honest, I like 1# It follows my heart, but terrorist and vigilantes are made of this stuff.

But 3# is what my head follows, in the end, civilization is built on restraint, lease chaos ensures.

as for 2#....

anyway, can't wait for next episode, would love to have a bet on what the outcome will be.....

[taelrak]

Originally Posted by Skane

Oh for gravy's sake. Nobody is debating about the legality of the move. I think this point has been beaten to the ground pointlessly enough already. It is about Tamaki's motives and intentions. What happened to her checklist? What happened to her temper? What happened to her sportsmanship?

Perhaps drunk-driving is a flawed analogy. Try road-rage instead.

Also, the latter part of this argument of yours is flawed because of your very own opening sentence. Drunk-driving IS a crime, and it is a crime because it helps to prevent more serious accidents from happening. Again, must we wait until it is too late before Tamaki is educated on the right path?

Prevention is better than cure.

Cheers.

Again, I bring up the point of the legality of the move not because it's a rule in the tournament, but as a means to show that her actions, motives, and intentions were perfectly within the accepted norms of the sport.
If one should follow the spirit of sportsmanship and bushi, then it's not a stretch to say that those rules are made with that sportsmanship in mind. Sure, there are ways to work around the system, but Tama's not really some scheming manipulator who uses the system to her own advantage. In such a case, Tama's not really violating any such "spirit" since it's well within that code to stand up for what you believe in, to preserve the pure integrity of the sport.

As for drunk driving - drunk driving itself is a crime - but it is not the crime of "attempted murder" or any of the more serious offenses that may result from the act of drunk driving. That makes it in no way inconsistent with the latter part of my argument.

The same applies to road rage. It itself is considered wrong and is a crime by the fact that you can recklessly endanger others. Where it is not by itself considered wrong, only the resulting harm that results from road rage is considered wrong. Here, where Tamaki's actions are not wrong, and there is no harm that results, there is simply nothing morally reprehensible about what she did.

As for motive and intent:
Sportsmanship is based on a system of reciprocity and of honor. First one can question whether there is a basis for sportsmanship due to the lack of reciprocity in this situation.

Even if you can make an argument that sportsmanship demands honor and fair treatment even without reciprocity (rising above the opponent), her act was not disproportionate to her honor. There is nothing wrong about using a potentially dangerous move or dishonorable or unsportsmanlike about it. When a racecar driver takes a perhaps unnecessary risk and no harm results from it, do you say that he's unsportsmanlike? Of course not.

As for her checklist - I'm not seeing where it's morally relevant that she must follow it. It's a checklist, and in no way binding.

Your argument of prevention and deterrence makes sense. However, I think there are some practical problems with it. Prevention is only as useful in the sense that the means taken for such prevention will actually result in less of the inappropriate behavior in the future.

1. Let's assume for the moment that she acted this way purely out of provocation. I don't think this is the case, but it would make for a stronger argument against Tama right? Let's also assume for the time being that her actions were wholly inappropriate.

2. Let's also assume that she has no real malice. I'm sure we can all agree that Tama is not some coldblooded bully or killer who thinks that she'll just use a dangerous move and who cares what happens to her opponent - or worse, to actually plan to create some sort of injury to her opponent.

3. Provocation by definition is something that is very hard for a person to control. The idea of provocation is that
a) the other person is blameworthy in some way; and
b) something happened where it's almost impossible for the actor to control himself.
and because of that we morally excuse that person.

4. If something was so strong a provocation that the person couldn't control herself however, how exactly do you intend to deter or prevent such behavior? Prevention and deterrence is based on the assumption that people will be able to rationally think out the consequences beforehand.

5. Even if discipline, early training, and early anger management can make her less reactive to such anger, would this necessarily be the best development for her in kendo? I suggest that such prevention would have an overly chilling effect and lead to preventing behavior from her that we actually want to encourage - which is often the case in these types of situations.

6. More to the point here, if she was so overcome by anger that she lost reason and did something she otherwise would have thought to be too dangerous to use, then how, in the absence of reason, would you expect her to suddenly say to herself this isn't what I should do?

Another alternative is that, even while being angry, she assessed what she was going to do and considered that the consequences of her actions would not be so severe as to be irresponsible. In this case then, do we really care to prevent such behavior?

In any case, by condemning drunk driving itself, we can prevent accidents, insofar as people will be able to take measure before they get drunk. Is this really the case in provocation cases like Tama's?

Or rather, if we were to suppose that there was clear indication that her move was not acceptable--an indication much stronger than some vague teaching of her sensei/father of whom she is under no obligation to obey. What would this achieve in Tama? Would she

a) being so angry, she'd do it anyway?
b) seeing as it's not an approved means of behavior, she wouldn't do it?

A) seems unlikely because if Tama didn't care about acceptable boundaries of behavior, she could've just gone after the girl at anytime like some delinquent bully.

B) if she has the reasoning to forego certain behavior because it's not socially acceptable, then that implies she's clearly rational enough to weigh her decisions. This means that her decision to use that move was not wholly irrational but based on a reasonably prudent judgment, and thus, is there really something to prevent?

[felix]

Tama didn't loose her cool. Remember she offered her hand when she was down. Even though that might have been a imitation of the bullies gesture, as was perceived by Miss Snake, I think Tama did it out of sportsmanship. She wasn't filled with anger or anything of such when she went back...

That aside, I love those eyes.

[Boohahaha]

It indeed does sadden me when many people say that no harm was done in the end and hence it was okay. The ends justify the means is a path often used to avoid any moral responsibility.

Performing within the rules to punish or gain an advantage over other people may be legal, but that doesn't mean it is nice or correct to perform the action.

Using anger to your advantage is not something Martial Arts teachers like to encourage or teach. I certainly never remembered my instructor in Tae Kwon Do telling us to get emotional and angry to use it for our advantage. Instead they have always emphasized calmness and a clear head. The last person in my class that got too emotional and cocky was told to do a 100 push ups, and a stern talking to.

[felix]

...and you say Tama-chan got angry? I see her going in meaning to win, but not much more then that.

What specific scene do you get the anger from?

[Onizuka-GTO]

Originally Posted by Boohahaha

It indeed does sadden me when many people say that no harm was done in the end and hence it was okay. The ends justify the means is a path often used to avoid any moral responsibility.

It is indeed a saddening thing.

Using anger to your advantage is not something Martial Arts teachers like to encourage or teach. I certainly never remembered my instructor in Tae Kwon Do telling us to get emotional and angry to use it for our advantage. Instead they have always emphasized calmness and a clear head. The last person in my class that got too emotional and cocky was told to do a 100 push ups, and a stern talking to.

ha.

The best lesson is when you learn the lesson directly, i remember my karate sensei scolding a stubborn lad, to stay calm.

in the end he sparred with the lad and showed him in the directest means possible.

what happens when you let your emotions rule your actions, with the poor lad on the mat panting in pain.



Its a humbling experience and your just glad you don't make the same mistake.

[taelrak]

[QUOTE=Onizuka-GTO;1376710]It is indeed a saddening thing.

I never said ends justify the means. However, the ends may be the only realistic measure of the means that you have. Here, everyone is speculating on how dangerous, and how irrational, and how clouded Tama's judgment is, but none of know any of those variables at all. All we know is that she was upset, and that she gained determination from that anger. It's not fair to simply judge someone as morally wrong or deluded or driven by anger when we have no real way to measure that at all. That's why, as far as her actions go, the ultimate result that occurred is as much empirical evidence as we can find as to the probability of real harm, her intentions, and her motives.

ha.

The best lesson is when you learn the lesson directly, i remember my karate sensei scolding a stubborn lad, to stay calm.

in the end he sparred with the lad and showed him in the directest means possible.

what happens when you let your emotions rule your actions, with the poor lad on the mat panting in pain.



Its a humbling experience and your just glad you don't make the same mistake.

That 'lesson' proves nothing more than that a superior force overpowers a weaker force. Of course an experienced karate teacher will beat a weaker student who isn't thinking straight. In the end, all that teacher proved was he didn't like the way the student thought, and that the teacher was stronger than the student. Of course, in many instances, all that matters is that one is stronger than the other, but is this really the kind of lesson you want to be learning from martial arts?

Sure, I'm willing to concede that oftentimes, you want a clear head going into a match. Beating up a student to "illustrate" that point is not the way to do it.

If you wanted to apply the same standard that people have been applying to Tama of late, that teacher should have risen above such means and instead enlightened the stubborn student by being an example of the very principles he's trying to teach.

Otherwise, you could say the same of Tama. As someone who is in a unique position to teach an extremely stubborn opponent (during a match, where you learn a lot about kendo from your opponent), she had the implicit moral duty to set her on the right path - in the most "direct way possible" as you put it.

[Wavedash]

[QUOTE=taelrak;1376720]

Originally Posted by Onizuka-GTO

Otherwise, you could say the same of Tama. As someone who is in a unique position to teach an extremely stubborn opponent (during a match, where you learn a lot about kendo from your opponent), she had the implicit moral duty to set her on the right path - in the most "direct way possible" as you put it.

It doesn't apply that way, actually. The structure of martial arts apprenticeships - because that's essentially what they are - is that internal to a school the students (and ultimately the teacher) are responsible for each other. Unfortunately this does not hold between schools.

To also respond to a previous post taelrak made, number 5 (I suggest that such prevention would have an overly chilling effect and lead to preventing behavior from her that we actually want to encourage - which is often the case in these types of situations) is a point of contention. I don't personally agree with it but that opinion is held among some.

[taelrak]

[QUOTE=Wavedash;1376752]

Originally Posted by taelrak

It doesn't apply that way, actually. The structure of martial arts apprenticeships - because that's essentially what they are - is that internal to a school the students (and ultimately the teacher) are responsible for each other. Unfortunately this does not hold between schools.

To also respond to a previous post taelrak made, number 5 (I suggest that such prevention would have an overly chilling effect and lead to preventing behavior from her that we actually want to encourage - which is often the case in these types of situations) is a point of contention. I don't personally agree with it but that opinion is held among some.

Yea, martial arts is hierarchical. There's no such duty in the relationship between two strangers in a match. However, such a structure is institutionalized and a tradition. I don't particularly see a reason to adhere to a tradition and a hierarchy merely because that's the way people have always done it. There is no *moral* reason for an individual to have to adhere to that hierarchy. If I find my sensei using teaching as an excuse to beat me up, or even using in a good faith attempt to teach a principle that has nothing to do with the method of teaching, I certainly wouldn't stick around.

I have to agree that the point about Tama having an obligation to "teach" that other girl is a bit weak though. It was more to just illustrate that I didn't agree with the sensei's method of teaching.

[JediNight]

Omg, all of like the last 4-5 pages of this thread are tl;dr x_X

[ThoHell]

JUST 4-5? LIKE ALOT MORE! LOL, this argument is going to go on for ANOTHER WEEK AT LEAST! I know it's going to last all the way up until episode 19, when setting and event change so it changes everyone's focus. Ep 18 is just a continuation/conclusion of 17 so this argument will still continue even onto that episode. It a no win argument, it can go back and forth with goods and bads being pointed out in every crack possible. But it is amusing none the less.....so don't mind my ranting and continue the fight to see who will be victorious with the whitiest of words!