Gokufuri Kyohi Shite Tesaguri Start! Tokka Shinai Healer, Nakama to Wakarete Tabi ni Deru - Vol. 6 Ch. 39

[feha]

So Gol D. Roger, Golden Kamui the 12 Gold Saints and Gold from Pokemon are related too?

No to that last one. That one is actually truly and purely incidental.

 

[kikix12]

No.

I thought about responding with some real points, but you didn't say anything that contradicted what I said, so there's no point. You didn't even support your own statement about how I was over- and underestimating things, so a simple, "No," is sufficient to counter that.

Eh...Huh?! My entire post was explaining why some self-taught people can and WILL defeat trained people...and you say I didn't give any arguments?! Seriously?!

Learn to read.

 

[AnotherDuck]

Eh...Huh?! My entire post was explaining why some self-taught people can and WILL defeat trained people...and you say I didn't give any arguments?! Seriously?!

You didn't give any arguments that contradict what I said, nor supported your claim that I underestimated self-taught people.

You did give an argument that someone who trains more can learn more, which is obvious. It's like saying a bigger rock is heavier than a small one. It has nothing to do with how you're trained, and as such it's irrelevant.

You did give an argument about modern sports. It has nothing to do with a pseudo-medieval world and training lethal combat, and as such it's irrelevant.

You did give an argument about hitting vital spots. It has nothing to do with how you're trained, and as such it's irrelevant. If anything, that kind of knowledge would more easily be passed down by a proper trainer, which is a point against you.

So, in conclusion, you, at best, didn't argue against yourself, and at worst, made your argument worse. Good job, you played yourself.

Learn to read.

Learn to read so you know what you're responding to, and learn what your arguments actually mean.

Do you also want me to dissect the second half of that post, since there were a number of things wrong there as well?

 

[Beregorn]

No to that last one. That one is actually truly and purely incidental.

But ONLY that one 😂

 

[Odious1]

Didn't Rook win that fight? It's not like Rook would actually aim for the back of the head, like he would've in real combat. The fact that he got past the back of the head and was able to hit all the way to the cheek means: he would've plunged that knife into the back of his neck and the fist would've never come. Also, why would he volunteer his services for free? He already proved his healing ability, there's no need to "prove" more. Want healing? Pay for it. His actions here are a little too doormat for me.

 

[Odious1]

Yeah, if he's that good, he should have a fast reaction to that.

He's a white magician, after all.

This has a bit of an, "and everybody clapped," feeling to it.

If they're self-taught, I don't think they'd hold up much against people taught by people who actually know what they're doing. Unless magic learning is involved.

Always gotta be someone who doesn't approve of MC. As if that approval is needed anyway.

It's not a "bad ending". It's a tragedy. They were actually more popular in the older days. So his reaction makes sense, not having any clue about history. It's also the type of stories commoners like. Nobles, not so much.


Do you have a source for that? Most martial arts came about due to training for warfare and combat.

But yeah, it is kind of weird, but he did think it was because people learn skills from the blessings anyway, so it's not as much needed to have a teaching culture for it.

Yeah, lol, that comment came right out of their ass. We invent out of necessity and MA is a physical invention born out of necessity. Combat, especially pre-gun years, almost always came down to a scuffle. Anything can happen in a scuffle. Training takes that "anything" out of the equation. They came up with move after move after move trying to eliminate more and more of those "anythings" from happening. Those time tested moves were memorized or recorded (later in history) and became standard for noobs to learn. Hey, guess what?! We just invented a martial art! Yoga? Copying animals? Hippies? Drugs? Yoga's an art itself and copying animals is long passed the invention of martial arts and long into conceptualizing a NEW form of ma (built from an old ma foundation and an understanding that ma already exists). The only hippie on drugs here is the original commenter😅.

 

[Grikath]

For martial arts using weapons like bows and swords, those were indeed largely for warfare and combat, and they were kept among nobility for very simple reason. Nobility were the only ones that could even afford to have, use and LEARN those weapons. Oftentimes, they were the only ones that were allowed to even have them. Including out of fear that teaching plebeians how to fight would bite them in the back. If plebeians that rebeled knew how to fight well, they would pose significantly more danger to the nobles. This is the exact same logic why knowledge was closely kept, monopolized, by religions. That's why no one should be grateful to religions for 'propagating knowledge'. That's why people should blame religions for monopolizing knowledge and preventing it being spread widely, because that's what they did, just like nobles monopolized 'strength'.

Maybe in Asia... In Europe... not so much..
From Roman/Tribal era, through the medieval ages, through the Renaissance... Pretty every man-bod was supposed to be able to fight and learned how to.

The only nobility that even tried to disarm their peasantry were the Burgundian French. And that ended really badly for said nobles on several occasions. Oh, and the spanish Habsburgs..
Most places settled the matter with sumptuary laws, which didn't work all that well either. Can't wear a sword, because? Here, have a Messer...

The real "disarmament" of the peasantry was not due to custom or law, but simple economics: From the 14thC on it was more efficient and practical to hire professional mercenary bands, instead of relying on peasant levies.
War became "professionalised", which decreased the need for the peasantry to learn how to fight, on top of having to do the peasanting. So they didn't.
Although many a second/third/etc. son without hope of inheriting or marrying into a farm did sign up with those companies.
And those that did survive quite often retired in Ye Olde Village ( or another one with a likely widow with a farm..), so there were a fair number of combat-hardened veterans amongst the peasants and the gentry.

Similar for cities and their militias. Citizens trained at arms. Were expected to, even. Crossbow, pike/spear, later halberd, formation drill, close combat, the works. Quite often headed by, you guessed it... former mercenaries.

I think you'll find that for "The West" for the past two millennia most males knew how to fight, and were taught at least the basics.
That ended, of course, with the end of conscription.. Which generally means millennials and up who never had to do the Rounds.
And it shows......

 

[Odious1]

The origin of martial arts is self-taught/trial by error; trial by death. The were invented out of basic necessity: both, to protect yourself AND to murder your enemy. It wasn't one or the other, as they were used for combat originally. You skip all over history to explain your points, and while much is correct, it's also half-assed, so it's just as wrong as it is right. The first weapon man had was his hands and feet and it was the first weapon mankind honed, LONG before weapons ever existed. Tribesmen picked up techniques by fighting it out with their opponents, winning, finding commonalities in all their fights, and realizing that a specific move can be used on specific opponents continuously. Those techniques were then verbally passed on and used by the next generation. The next generation was also always in combat and they too honed techniques from the experiences they went through in life, and those too, with the ones they learned from others, were passed on to the generation after the next. This cycle continues until we can finally start jotting it all down systematically. This systematic creation of killing techniques is what we call martial arts. All original martial arts were brutal and became more brutal as humans gained more scientific knowledge of HOW the human body works. Attacking pressure points, joints, and the likes, stems from this gained knowledge. Martial arts didn't become "artsy" as a whole until television. Artsy MAs were used in plays and the likes before TV, but it wasn't a widely known understanding of them until after tv, because they spread across the world like a plague in thanks to tv. When interest in these more "dance-y" arts hit, people made a market for them and invented more and more of them. Combat arts were long spread across the world (over a long period of time) and adapted into each and every culture. They advance as we advance, in technique/understanding and in technology. As far as self-taught knowledge, lis, in the very beginning, everything was self taught, but "self-taught arts" today AREN'T self-taught. The knowledge people are using to come up with anything today is taught knowledge. All you're doing as today's "self-taught" is taking prior knowledge from here and there that is advantageous for you specifically, and honing it to your person. That's it. A person that has the knowledge to hone and train themselves MORE than a TRADITIONAL martial artist, is able to do so because they HAVE martial arts knowledge (gained from someone else's martial arts knowledge) and the training know-how (gained from someone else's training know-how). What you describe as self-taught is, one, not self-taught, and two, still a martial artist, just not a traditionally taught one. Prior to everyone having the world's knowledge at their finger tips, you had those that were taught and those that were not. Luck was the only factor "those that were not" could ever hope to rely on in a 1 v 1 against a trained opponent. Who generally won in the colloseum, the warrior or the slave? This is a realistic look between taught and self-taught, and the answer of which is better is clear. Slaves had to learn to fight to survive but it didn't mean they knew enough to take on someone that understood HOW TO, and was ABLE TO, breakdown a human body. Finally, sword arts, spear arts, and other weapons arts are all branches of martial arts which rules and regs of use was/is dependant on the society in which they are used, specifically. For western society, nobles and their retainers were taught sword arts. Mainly, because weapons aren't cheap and they WEREN'T easy to make; while, some societies gave excessive status to weilding a sword. Eastern societies didn't hold such a regard, but swords were still expensive so status ended up playing a role as years went by. Lastly, the populace has only been literate from within the last 100 years, or so (by the 1970's the world was basically literate). The push for populace literacy was only like 130 years ago. In that small window of time, commoners destroyed the world with their newly gained knowledge. This was ALWAYS the fear, and, yes, as you can see, it was predicted accurately. Knowledge was always hoarded for a reason. PROGRESS BY ANY MEANS was the reason why knowledge was finally given up to everyone. This was because, even 2000 years ago, they were able to understand the necessity to free us from our "earthly restraints". In the most layman's way of understanding: they understood that until we got off this rock, we were subject to all that it throws at us, and in the future, we would be subject to our own population's pollutants as more and more humans are born. Religions, as we know them, were birthed by nations and were controlled by those nations. The Flavians, rulers of the Two Sicilies, were the makers of the Bible. The original Bible was a historical account of where we came from, where we are, and where we are going; it was a book to teach and maintain a code of conduct for that specific society; it was a gathering of beliefs and ideologies; it was a science book that taught a person birth, life, and death and implemented understandings that we SCIENTIFICALLY and MATHEMATICALLY understood. Yes, the original bible is both, scientific and mathematic. Genesis itself tells 3 stories: it tells of Romulus' banishment of Greece and his founding of Rome; it tells us of natural child birth... the how to's and all; it gives a moral ideology (based on their standard) to live by. The whole book is like this. It was constructed with mutiple ways to read the story, but most ppl (TODAY) don't know how to read it anymore (like any original religious tomb, ftm). You're looking at 2000 years of renditions, reinterpretations, and rewrites to get the convoluted mess of "organized religion" we have today. There's 6 main groups of Christianity, but 100s of christianities fall in those groups; each with a slightly different bias and ideology, and some with an extremely different bias, altogether. However, none of them ordered to hoard info, by themselves. That was all done by the gov'ts that controlled them. Religion just has a tendency to trickle in (or take over) because those that run those gov'ts also believe in those same beliefs, or they made those beliefs to begin with. Catholicism, because it was given its own country, is the outlier when it comes to a religion being in charge of knowledge control. Other places, like Jerusalem, where religion is deeply embedded, is where we see extreme religious control, but that happened over time, not in the beginning. The rulers changed over and over but the religion continually survived, so the religion became the corner stone, not the governmental party. Religion takes a weird major part in "controlling" human society, but, again, that's just the ideology passed by the gov'ts themselves, and what remains after many, many years go by; which, is usually the religion, not the gov't.

You're both overestimating the value of martial arts and underestimating the value of self-teaching. The reason why martial artists are more dangerous in a fight, in real life, is largely due to the physical difference born from training, which is a heavy physical activity. A person that hones their reflexes, stamina and strength through any means to a degree greater than a given martial artist is going to pose a serious danger to them even without any martial arts of their own.

Some martial arts do offer a significant edge by teaching to make the strikes more instinctive (and thus faster and more precise), other teach atypical methods that excel in certain circumstances (for example, throws or holds that allow to use your strength more effectively). But in a fight to the death, basic physical abilities, mental state and weapons are significantly more important.

Also, some of the modern martial arts are actually a detriment in a brawl. They are sports, so they are meant to NOT hurt the opponent (too much). That would make you actually weaker against any opponent that wants to just take you down no matter the cost. Training them still increases your basic physical abilities though, but so does street brawling, so a guy that spent half his life fighting no-holds-barred will more often than not completely wreck a sports-learned martial artist.

In stories with adventurers, those are usually fights to the death (especially against monsters). At that point martial artists actually get significantly less important as your main priority is hitting the opponents vital points. Usually that would be joints, neck, eyes, ears. Speed, strength and accuracy are vastly more important than any style.


Most (non-weapon or common weapon) martial arts actually were invented for basic self-defense. Over the course of history, many countries had castes that were not allowed or could not afford any weapons. Meanwhile, those were dangerous times. As such, the peasants had to learn how to use their bodies more effectively if they wanted to have an edge if attacked. That's why there's a number of weapon-based martial arts that are derived from stuff that a peasant may have, basically farming tools, knives, most importantly sticks and staffs that never were banned anywhere (until basebal bat bans).

For martial arts using weapons like bows and swords, those were indeed largely for warfare and combat, and they were kept among nobility for very simple reason. Nobility were the only ones that could even afford to have, use and LEARN those weapons. Oftentimes, they were the only ones that were allowed to even have them. Including out of fear that teaching plebeians how to fight would bite them in the back. If plebeians that rebeled knew how to fight well, they would pose significantly more danger to the nobles. This is the exact same logic why knowledge was closely kept, monopolized, by religions. That's why no one should be grateful to religions for 'propagating knowledge'. That's why people should blame religions for monopolizing knowledge and preventing it being spread widely, because that's what they did, just like nobles monopolized 'strength'.

 

[PlsReleaseChaptersFaster]

Thanks for the update

 

[HDMI1]

Spoiler

The origin of martial arts is self-taught/trial by error; trial by death. The were invented out of basic necessity: both, to protect yourself AND to murder your enemy. It wasn't one or the other, as they were used for combat originally. You skip all over history to explain your points, and while much is correct, it's also half-assed, so it's just as wrong as it is right. The first weapon man had was his hands and feet and it was the first weapon mankind honed, LONG before weapons ever existed. Tribesmen picked up techniques by fighting it out with their opponents, winning, finding commonalities in all their fights, and realizing that a specific move can be used on specific opponents continuously. Those techniques were then verbally passed on and used by the next generation. The next generation was also always in combat and they too honed techniques from the experiences they went through in life, and those too, with the ones they learned from others, were passed on to the generation after the next. This cycle continues until we can finally start jotting it all down systematically. This systematic creation of killing techniques is what we call martial arts. All original martial arts were brutal and became more brutal as humans gained more scientific knowledge of HOW the human body works. Attacking pressure points, joints, and the likes, stems from this gained knowledge. Martial arts didn't become "artsy" as a whole until television. Artsy MAs were used in plays and the likes before TV, but it wasn't a widely known understanding of them until after tv, because they spread across the world like a plague in thanks to tv. When interest in these more "dance-y" arts hit, people made a market for them and invented more and more of them. Combat arts were long spread across the world (over a long period of time) and adapted into each and every culture. They advance as we advance, in technique/understanding and in technology. As far as self-taught knowledge, lis, in the very beginning, everything was self taught, but "self-taught arts" today AREN'T self-taught. The knowledge people are using to come up with anything today is taught knowledge. All you're doing as today's "self-taught" is taking prior knowledge from here and there that is advantageous for you specifically, and honing it to your person. That's it. A person that has the knowledge to hone and train themselves MORE than a TRADITIONAL martial artist, is able to do so because they HAVE martial arts knowledge (gained from someone else's martial arts knowledge) and the training know-how (gained from someone else's training know-how). What you describe as self-taught is, one, not self-taught, and two, still a martial artist, just not a traditionally taught one. Prior to everyone having the world's knowledge at their finger tips, you had those that were taught and those that were not. Luck was the only factor "those that were not" could ever hope to rely on in a 1 v 1 against a trained opponent. Who generally won in the colloseum, the warrior or the slave? This is a realistic look between taught and self-taught, and the answer of which is better is clear. Slaves had to learn to fight to survive but it didn't mean they knew enough to take on someone that understood HOW TO, and was ABLE TO, breakdown a human body. Finally, sword arts, spear arts, and other weapons arts are all branches of martial arts which rules and regs of use was/is dependant on the society in which they are used, specifically. For western society, nobles and their retainers were taught sword arts. Mainly, because weapons aren't cheap and they WEREN'T easy to make; while, some societies gave excessive status to weilding a sword. Eastern societies didn't hold such a regard, but swords were still expensive so status ended up playing a role as years went by. Lastly, the populace has only been literate from within the last 100 years, or so (by the 1970's the world was basically literate). The push for populace literacy was only like 130 years ago. In that small window of time, commoners destroyed the world with their newly gained knowledge. This was ALWAYS the fear, and, yes, as you can see, it was predicted accurately. Knowledge was always hoarded for a reason. PROGRESS BY ANY MEANS was the reason why knowledge was finally given up to everyone. This was because, even 2000 years ago, they were able to understand the necessity to free us from our "earthly restraints". In the most layman's way of understanding: they understood that until we got off this rock, we were subject to all that it throws at us, and in the future, we would be subject to our own population's pollutants as more and more humans are born. Religions, as we know them, were birthed by nations and were controlled by those nations. The Flavians, rulers of the Two Sicilies, were the makers of the Bible. The original Bible was a historical account of where we came from, where we are, and where we are going; it was a book to teach and maintain a code of conduct for that specific society; it was a gathering of beliefs and ideologies; it was a science book that taught a person birth, life, and death and implemented understandings that we SCIENTIFICALLY and MATHEMATICALLY understood. Yes, the original bible is both, scientific and mathematic. Genesis itself tells 3 stories: it tells of Romulus' banishment of Greece and his founding of Rome; it tells us of natural child birth... the how to's and all; it gives a moral ideology (based on their standard) to live by. The whole book is like this. It was constructed with mutiple ways to read the story, but most ppl (TODAY) don't know how to read it anymore (like any original religious tomb, ftm). You're looking at 2000 years of renditions, reinterpretations, and rewrites to get the convoluted mess of "organized religion" we have today. There's 6 main groups of Christianity, but 100s of christianities fall in those groups; each with a slightly different bias and ideology, and some with an extremely different bias, altogether. However, none of them ordered to hoard info, by themselves. That was all done by the gov'ts that controlled them. Religion just has a tendency to trickle in (or take over) because those that run those gov'ts also believe in those same beliefs, or they made those beliefs to begin with. Catholicism, because it was given its own country, is the outlier when it comes to a religion being in charge of knowledge control. Other places, like Jerusalem, where religion is deeply embedded, is where we see extreme religious control, but that happened over time, not in the beginning. The rulers changed over and over but the religion continually survived, so the religion became the corner stone, not the governmental party. Religion takes a weird major part in "controlling" human society, but, again, that's just the ideology passed by the gov'ts themselves, and what remains after many, many years go by; which, is usually the religion, not the gov't.

Dude either spoiler that or separate it into paragraphs, the wall of text is killing my eyes.