Situation #1: Don't sweat it... let small-minded and inconsiderate people be small-minded and inconsiderate. You tried, they were a jerk, don't let their
inablility to be a decent human-being in this situation reflect on your value as a person.
Situation #2: IMNSHO, It's time to tell Mr. Nosey and the kids to keep the hell out! If it's a room or space that has a door, put a lock on it and keep the only key. If it's not, since you've tried the "discuss this like rational adults" bit, read them the riot act. I know that others here will disagree, but personal space is personal space. If someone, especially someone who's close to you, is invading your personal space and refuses to be considerate, it's time to reinforce how important it is for you to have your request respected.
Your answer in #3 of your last post helps me tremendously. I have a friend who also believes that violence is never
justified. This person is a trained martial artist, owns and shoots firearms, and claims to also be a realist. yet, they also maintain that the use of violence no matter what
justified. I see the exact same attitude in your post as this person espouses. They also claim that any use of violence means that one is a moral failure while also claiming that they don't make moral judgements on other's use of violence. I'm glad to see another person with this same mindset. Hopefully I can gain a better understanding. Having used verbal discussion to diffuse situations in the past, I am not one to resort to violence as the primary measure. However, IMNSHO, saying that any resort to violence is a moral failure and following that with the contention that there is no corresponding criticism of others (which implies by structure, "others who have used violence"), seems to go beyond contradictory.
I'm close with this other person and truly
want to understand. You also said that there exists points beyond which physical violence is the correct choice. This is almost an exact word-for-word statement from the other person I know who's said the same things. How
can you reconcile that statement (even if there is a difference on where the line is drawn) with the fact that you would then, by your own stated beliefs be a moral failure? Part of my problem with this is that, for me, I will never do something, ever
that I do not feel is morally justified because that would betray my very soul and the foundations of my beliefs. For me, assaulting someone is unjustified violence (whether verbal or physical), yet self-defense is a justified use of force to protect oneself and one's loved ones from the unjustified violence of others. Can you understand the distinction I'm making? My friend still maintains that even in self-defense, violence begets violence and that it is never justified and therefore incumbant on each of us to end the violence when it reaches us. That's all well and good in a vaccuum, but violence does exist in the real world (tm) and sometimes it rears it's ugly head into our lives as much as we do to try and avoid it. Sooooo, this postition has got me really confused.
Contrary to the main discussions on these forums, I've found that VSD isn't so much talking as it is listening... In the situations where it's worked for me, I spent most of the time listening
and validating the other person. When they stop talking, they can start thinking about getting physical. So in those situations, I've always asked a question when the person stopped talking, just to keep them talking, but also to gain more data and give them a chance to "talk themselves down".