This is only true if your definition of "confrontation" is one that you made up yourself. If you challenge someone's behavior, you have confronted them and therefore have created a confrontation where none existed before.I'm not creating a confrontation if I ask someone to stop doing something that most would consider rude or inconsiderate.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confront
con·front transitive verb \kən-ˈfrənt\
Definition of CONFRONT
1: to face especially in challenge : oppose <confront an enemy>
2a : to cause to meet : bring face-to-face <confront a reader with statistics> b : to meet face-to-face : encounter <confronted the possibility of failure>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confrontation
con·fron·ta·tion noun \ˌkän-(ˌ)frən-ˈtā-shən\
Definition of CONFRONTATION
: the act of confronting : the state of being confronted: as a : a face-to-face meeting
b : the clashing of forces or ideas : conflict
c : comparison <the flashbacks bring into meaningful confrontation present and past, near and far — R. J. Clements>
Taking any position to the extreme results in nonsensical conclusions. It's not a constructive thing to do.Taking your position to the extreme...
That's correct. And we prepare for that risk, however low the probability. That's exactly why I'm suggesting that it's a very good idea to keep the risk in mind when we consider creating a confrontation.Being prepared for a low probability event doesn't negate accepting risk when dealing with other humans. Walking out the front door is a risk, hell - taking a bath is a risk.
Not at all. If you read my last post, you would have seen this comment.Based on the majority of the replies here it is obvious we have already lost the battle and it's just a matter of time before we cower in our homes.
"I think we all understand that there are thresholds that can be crossed at which point it's no longer possible to turn our backs and ignore something, but generally speaking, when something truly rises to that level, it's possible to summon the authorities to deal with the situation."
Either way, it's important to understand that we're taking on some risk when we create a confrontation. Just because we determine that we really can't stand by and do nothing in a situation doesn't mean that the risk magically disappears. More importantly, it should guide us in our decision as to whether something is really worth creating a confrontation or if it's merely another opportunity for us to practice tolerance and patience.
The point isn't how much firepower you need, the point is that if you admit that you consider low probability events worth considering, then it makes sense for you to be consistent. If you prepare for the low probability event of a violent attacky by carrying a gun, then it doesnt' make sense to ignore the risk of a confrontation escalating to violence because you assess that the probability of that happening is low.I've said it in a slightly different context before, but the chances of being attacked have nothing to do with the amount of firepower I need if attacked.
Yes, risks are ever-present. It's one thing to say that you have assessed the risk and taken reasonable precautions and decided to go on in spite of the risk. It's another thing to say that you don't believe the risk should be considered because the chances of a negative outcome are very low. As I said before, sometimes it's a lot more about the magnitude of the penalty/cost than it is about the odds.There are risks in everything you do in life. Most sports carry with them an inherent risk. Should I avoid the ocean because I might drown? Should I avoid snowboarding because I might break my leg or neck?
No, the takeway is that we need to keep in mind that confronting people carries risk and that we need to consider if running that risk is worthwhile in light of the potential benefit of creating the confrontation.The problem with this concept is that the takeaway is to never interract with strangers, because anything you do or don't do can be perceived as disrespect by someone who wants an excuse to fight.
The SAFEST option is not to confront them if you don't have to. That may not always be an acceptable option, as I've alluded to. Sometimes you have to take action. But let's not do so under the impression that we can/should ignore the risk because the odds of a negative outcome are small.The problem is, not knowing what may or may not set someone off, your best option is to not interract with them at all.
I would go so far as to say that we not only have the right, we even have the responsibility to do so, in extreme cases. The problem comes when we pretend that loud music at a gas station rises to the same level as criminal behavior, when we decide that our personal irritation is sufficient to justify appointing ourselves to the positions of legislator, and enforcer.Therein lies the trouble. The idea that we have some right to do this in a public context is misguided and flawed in the first place.