beatledog7
Member
Skribs, I agree. It's the idea that we are somehow weak if we don't always stick up for ourselves, regardless of context, that causes needless problems.
It's on them, but that doesn't mean you won't suffer the consequence of their actions. Whether than means getting knifed, or whether it means successfully defending against the attack and all that entails, I doubt that, in retrospect, any sane/reasonable person would feel that they made a good decision by creating a confrontation where none needed to exist.They might comply, they might say "no" and just ignore me (at which point I'll have to put up with it), or they might get angry and pull a knife on me. In the later case, the overreaction to my request is not on me; it is on them.
Skribs, I agree. It's the idea that we are somehow weak if we don't always stick up for ourselves, regardless of context, that causes needless problems.
Would you really risk a violent confrontation over a few minutes of irritation?
It's on them, but that doesn't mean you won't suffer the consequence of their actions. Whether than means getting knifed, or whether it means successfully defending against the attack and all that entails, I doubt that, in retrospect, any sane/reasonable person would feel that they made a good decision by creating a confrontation where none needed to exist.
Sure, you have the right do speak up. Sometimes it's even a good idea. What I'm saying is that it's worthwhile to think about reasonably likely outcomes before speaking up and doing a simple cost/benefit analysis.
This has to be taken in context.And I'm saying that in most situations described, escalating to violence is not reasonably likely.
But that assumes that the other person is rational.Posted by Skribs: And I'm saying that in most situations described, escalating to violence is not reasonably likely.
If you took this approach to self-defense, you wouldn't be carrying a gun since you aren't likely to need one.I just said it's not likely to.
This brings us quite nicely back to a point we've tripped over more times than I can count.
You have the RIGHT to do a great many things which may be very unwise, or which may simply prove to have consequences you were not prepared for.
You have the RIGHT to walk down Gratiot St. in Detroit at 11:30 pm in nothing but a pink tu-tu, wearing 12 Rolexes on each arm and singing Klan rally songs. But nothing on earth makes you immune from the consequences of those choices....
There's a difference between being assertive and being aggressive. I believe you have every right to be assertive if someone does something to offend or wrong you.
If the person is violating a law/ordnance or other legal restriction, then the obvious solution is to summon the authorities. This thread is about things that don't rise to that level.... if the offense is a Breach of the Peace or put another way, encroaching on other people's peace. After all, isn't that why we have noise ordanances, zoning restrictions, laws against public nudity, public drunkeness, etc.?
If your goal is to fix the bad behavior of all the folks you come in contact with, then go for it. Just be aware that it comes with a level of risk, keep the possible consequences in mind and don't bite off more than you're willing to deal with. And for pity's sake, if you do bite off more than you can chew, don't go shooting unarmed teens once you get out of your depth like this guy did.And I'll take it a step further and go so far as to say that the more we turn our collective backs on bad behavior the worse the behavior will get.
I think you're missing the point. The fact that I decide not to initiate a confrontation doesn't automatically mean I'm afraid to speak out. It merely means that my cost/benefit analysis of that particular situation was that initiating the confrontation was potentially far more trouble that it was worth.We don't have to be rude or aggressive in our requests but we shouldn't be afraid to speak up either.
If you took this approach to self-defense, you wouldn't be carrying a gun since you aren't likely to need one.
The fact that you do carry a gun means that you understand the basic concept that sometimes it's more about the cost/penalty than it is about the odds.
Same thing applies here. Is it likely? I don't think so. But the penalty/cost could be devatastating if the unlikely happens. That's why I carry a gun and that's why I don't initiate confrontations needlessly.
That wasn't tthe point at all.Posted by Skribs: Just because I assume that your general layman isn't going to randomly stab me doesn't mean I can't be prepared for when one tries. But just like we don't like gunstores putting us on trial every time we buy a gun, I'm not going to assume that every person I come across is going to gut me if I look at him funny. Instead, I'll pay attention and defend myself if need be.
I once witnessed a well dressed man very nicely and politely ask a woman to not get in the way of a photograph he was about to take. The timing of the shot was important to him. She had not intended to interfere; she just happened to wander into the way.
Her significant other exploded, ripped off his jacket, and charged. The women grabbed him; the photographer prepared to defend himself; and I intervened verbally but rather forcefully. He slowed for a moment. The woman had to drag the man away.
The point is that you're preparing for a very low probability event in this case but trying to dismiss the risk of another very low probability event in another situation using the low probability of the event as rationalization.Just because I assume that your general layman isn't going to randomly stab me doesn't mean I can't be prepared for when one tries.
Well, in the simplest analysis, yes, it is about surviving. If your goal is to clean up society, and you're largely unconcerned with the risk that entails, then it makes perfect sense to go about trying to teach the unmannered how to behave politely. If your goal is to survive, then creating confrontations doesn't make much sense.In some ways, it's all become about letting everyone do as they like and if they step on you, well, just scurry away so that you can survive to scurry again another day. And oh, by the way, don't interact with anyone because they might be the maniac waiting to go off as well. (I'm curious as to know what that photographer should've done instead.) What if the jerk that blasts his music at the gas station now visits his friend in your neighborhood and now it permeates your home?
This is a combination of melodrama and the slippery slope fallacy. It's quite a stretch to imply that ignoring some idiot blasting his music at a gas station is going to result in your being forced to move out of your own house. At some point, blasting music will, as a result of the noise level, the area, or the time of day, become an actual legal offense and the authorities will deal with it.They're being told to walk away now, and again later, and again beyond that. Next thing you know, they'll be told to move out of their own house. Oh, but wait, in some states they already have been told to scurry from their homes as well.
Nobody's suggesting that we should place ourselves in jeopardy by turning our backs on a person who has actually demonstrated that they're a threat. This is about creating a confrontation where none previously existed. In other words, it's about CREATING a potential threat where there wasn't one to begin with, and using irritation and/or righteous indignation as a rationale for that action.I once witnessed a bully pound a guy who tried to walk away. The last thing said was
"DON'T TURN YOUR BACK ON ME PUNK!" People who really want to fight will rationalize anything you do as some form of disrespect deserving of a beating.