Or, maybe another way to say it is, if we're being asked our opinion about what happened, and we knowingly limit ourselves to what is overtly stated in the thread, we're not having a real discussion about anything,
Well, we kind of have that issue with any discussion we have here. Just about any account that any of us here give about anything is probably filtered through our personal biases and could be outright lies for all most of the people reading could know. When we talk about our martial arts experiences and qualifications, we could be lying. If we mention a sick family member we could be engaging in Munchausen Syndrome by proxy. When we ask for feedback on how to handle a situation we've experienced, we might have twisted the facts to be completely unrecognizable to anyone who was actually there. Heck, everything I've ever posted on this forum could be a complete fabrication. (You could independently verify some of the details with some detective work, but not all of it.)
If we're going to have any actual conversations, though, we have to give each other some benefit of the doubt. I do generally assume there is some inherent bias in anyone's stories, even if they're doing their best to be completely honest, because our perceptions and memories are imperfect. I don't think there's much to be gained by pointing this out to people every time they tell me something that happened to them, though. For the sake of having a conversation, I will by default provisionally accept their version of events if I'm going to engage in a discussion.
There are exceptions, of course.
If some action is demanded of me in response to the story then I will require a higher burden of proof. If the OP had identified the problem parent as Bob Q. Jones living in such and such an address and wanted us to publicly spread the word about his bad behavior and ban him from signing up for any of our schools, then I would take a pass.
If the story as told stretches credulity to the breaking point, then I may not be willing to engage in the conversation under any pretense that I think it might be true. If the OPs story had ending with him sprinkling the parent with holy water causing the fiend to sprout bat wings and fly back to hell, I'm going to be open about my disbelief. Likewise if the storyteller has a history of telling unbelievable stories I will be less likely to give them the benefit of the doubt on a marginal case.
If I know the person telling the story well enough that I know their personal biases and they know me well enough to trust me when I point those out, then I may carefully (and privately) point out where I think they may not be recalling things accurately. If I knew that Headhunter had a tendency to get red in the face and sound belligerent when his judgment was challenged, then I might gently suggest "you know, sometimes you set people off without meaning to in these kinds of discussions. Do you think that might have happened here?"
But, I do believe these things don't happen in a vacuum. I think the OP probably didn't help the situation. The parent is, as you note below, also a big part of the problem. And the head instructor. As I said before, I don't know the exact formula, but all three shoulder some responsibility.
It certainly
could be the case that all three were part of the problem. The OP might have left out crucial information showing how he or his instructor contributed to the confrontation. I don't see any reason to assume that this
must be the case. Not every instance of bad behavior is the fault of all the people involved.
I can't be the only one here who read the original post and thought, "Huh... that is an odd sequence of events."
Unusual, but definitely not outside the bounds of believability. As I mentioned, I used to work in retail. There were multiple instances over the years where I was verbally abused or physically threatened by a customer even as I did my best to stay calm and reasonable. I don't buy the notion that I must have been partially at fault because "these things don't happen in a vacuum."
