[anaisdannyxys]

An interesting list of common McDojo defenders arguments, originally posted over att Bullshido.com
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=52223

I'm getting alot of deja vus here.

Bullshidoka Argument #1 - Demanding that we train with or under the subject of the investigation before we make any conclusions about his claims.

Counter - An experienced martial artist can make reasonable judgments about someone else's level of skill or expertise. Although first hand experience is effective, informed judgments can be drawn from video clips and other media. This may not stand alone as conclusive proof of anything, but it can be a factor that raises the red flag of bullshido.

#2 - Questioning the ability of posters here to make informed judgments.

Counter - Similar to the counter for argument #1. The presence of skilled practioners of a variety of styles is one of Bullshido.net's greatest assests. That said, you don't have to be able to sing to identify someone who can't (American Idol, anyone?).

#3 - Refusal to provide information because people were not polite.
This argument also sets the stage for a future refusal to provide information even to a polite request - the Bullshidoka need merely say, "I am not providing information to any of you because you were mean to me."

Counter - Subtance over form. If the person is willing and able to provide information that would help prove their point, it is reasonable to assume that they would do so in most situations.

#4 - Claims that the investigation has gone beyond its original purpose. For example, a man who claims an impressive but unverified tournament record is also found to have claimed military or law enforcement experience, but the subject or his supporters get upset because that wasn't the original point of the investigation.

Counter - The investigative process involves gathering as much relevant information as possible, forming a preliminary hypothesis, and then finding evidence that will substantiate or unsubstantiate that hypothesis. Throughout the entire process, the hypothesis is reviewed, updated, and modified, based on new information. Supplemental information may be relevant to the hypothesis that the person has lied about or misrepresented parts of his history to bolster his own authority (usually as it relates to MA).

#5 - Makes a number of suggestions about additional questions which are not relevant to the issues at hand. Takes the position that a lack of interest in following up irrelevant information reveals an intentional double-standard in the investigative process. The "suggestions" can also be accusatory - "Why didn't you ask Jane if Jack's karate made him a better family man?"

Counter - Simple explanation about why that line of questions isn't relevant.

#6: Argument by Repitition (also an informal fallacy). Operating under the assumption that saying something over and over again will make it true.

Counter: Point it out, and refer them back to your previous responses.

#7: Strawman. I think we all know what this looks like.

Counter: Point it out, and make fun of them for it.

#8: Needling. Making annoying remarks designed to cause others to become angry.

Counter: Point it out, and don't play their game.

#9 - Argument by Distraction. This category includes claims to have made people angry/upset, claims of a conpiracy against the subject, or anything else that tries to distract posters from the issue at hand.

Counter - Ignore it. If you react to it, you only clutter the thread. I suppose we could repeat the motivation for the investigation as often as necessary, or at least reference it. Example, "No, we're not trying to bring down the man out of jealousy. If you read post #1 and the rest of this thread, you can see that he has made exceptional claims without providing any envidence to support them."

# 10 - Requesting that those who are investigating, provide the same information that is being asked for them.

This tactic is used to "throw the dogs off your scent" so to speak. It makes everyone look at the accuser and not the accused. Nothing wrong with making sure that the person acting as the accuser is not doing so in a malicious way but in an honest attempt to gather important facts but it shouldn't allow the accused a free ride just because the accuser was dishonest in his/her investigative intent.

Counter - If the accused does bring up important information about the accuser then start a new thread about the accuser but keep the original thread on track with regards to the accused.

*Edit*

This one may seem similar to one mentioned above about the ability of other posters to judge the one being investigated but it is not. This one is pointed more towards the investigated individual accusing the originator of the investigation of wrongdoing as a means of removing pressure from him/herself.

#11- Multiple Personalities

This argument tactic can vary along the continuum from the literal, in the form of the shared account, to the tag-team approach (typically teacher/student), to a shotgun approach, with multiple posters from the same school/dojo posting different messages with widely divergent styles (crude and threatening, pleading, conciliatory, wordy) hoping that one succeeds. A good cop/bad cop variation of this is to have the crazy, unhinged student poster says "u guyz r gonna die" and the apologetic "let's just forget all of this" teacher. Also includes multiple accounts, although this tactic is crude and obvious.

Counter- Demand to know who is who as precisely as possible, and clarify the situation. Are you Sifu X? Are you a student of Sifu X? If it is the sifu/sensei/subject of the investigation, ask them what their precise stance or relationship is to the other posts or statements of their friends and students.