there is an advert in my local leisure centre that claims that Aikido will allow you to defend yourself from multiple attackers.
Now I know that Martial arts aren't really regulated so they don't have to back up their own belief in a system or art, but advertising is regulated.
Any martial art that uses outlandish claims to drum up business should have to prove them or stop claiming them in advertising.
Edit: but suing a school because you got yourself an ass kicking is just stupid.
Yes and no.
Originally Posted by philmgriffin
You missed my comment of "Results May Vary?" That's why supplements, magnetic bracelets, cars, etc etc etc have that little DISCLAIMER at the bottom.
Yes it is regulated no it wouldn't stop the claims.
Before you advance to the next argument, how many posts have you read with the caveat "but we aren't skilled enough?" The defense has already been built.
fair point, you're right I did miss that.
Originally Posted by It is Fake
I would still like to see schools that make some of these outlandish claims forced to put large legal disclaimers at the bottom of the advert though.
Something like Warning this is not a substitute for live full contact training, or learning Kung Fu will not enable you to Re-enact scenes from Iron Monkey
There's also too many examples of people like Alex Gong: highly trained, above average martial artists getting injured/killed in street violence. There's just too many variables, and in the blink of an eye very bad things can happen. A law like that would have to assume that martial artists are supermen, and there's too much evidence that that's not true.
Originally Posted by newtoMA10
Oh, this part of the horse corpse looks relatively unbeaten so far :
At best the raped/beaten student could sue for a refund provided the student could prove he/she acted in accordance with their training. Unless the attack was well documented (on video from multiple angles w/good resolution etc) the school could just say their methods are sound but the student failed to follow the training.
Police brutality cases get decided that way. No matter what the cop does as long as he can prove "I did it the way I was shown in training" he skates. The student would have the same burden "I used teh d34dly but got raped anyway"
I think such trials should be decided thusly:
The injured party, after given sufficient time to heal, may challenge their former instructor. The training time disparity will be adjusted by giving the student a mouthpiece, a cup and a standard police nightstick. After an RBSD battle in the courtroom, the winner is awarded the ruling.
Actually, if it is effective in 20% of patients, and placebo is effective in 5%, they will approve it.
Originally Posted by newtoMA10
I imagine the guard would exacerbate the situation.
Originally Posted by Super8astard
Thank you. I'll be here all night.
Law schools lie? Say it ain't so!
Well if these class action cases below gain momentum who can say that TMA schools cannot be next?
Today's fine young legal cannibals are turning on their teaching masters because the promised pot of gold is just a pile of education debt for most - my heart is like an alligator.
Graduates accuse law schools of scamming students
Ain't Supply & Demand a bitch?
True, but they'd have to be held legally responsible.