Of course that is what you are suggesting: That doesn't mean giving them a chance to get back up and attack you again - it means ending the fight as soon as possible no matter what it takes.
You've made it clear that you don't feel safe walking away from a conflict unless your opponent is completely disabled, even if temporarily (but then how do you know they won't come after you later?). I think this is bunk and am quite willing to tolerate the risk that they'll attack again, because I feel confident about my ability to repel such attacks. I have in fact knocked someone down repeatedly, let him get back up, let him attack me again, and and a third time, until he got the message and stayed down.
Yes, this is dangerous, but so are a lot of things. It's dangerous in that it perpetuates a low-level danger in time, but I prefer an ongoing low-level risk to a sudden significant increase in risk. My judgments about risk in real-world situations have so far served me very well. It's true that any given street fight could kill, but it's also true that it probably won't unless you're quite unlucky, so I see no point in altering that probability if I don't need to. This is the same reason I avoid fights in the first place and am indifferent to mere verbal abuse or bluster - it is virtually never in my interest to initiate or escalate a conflict.
Assuming the attacker is somehow nice and should be scared away is insane in that situation.
I don't assume they're nice, in fact I make a habit of avoiding value judgments about people because they can so easily be misleading. My experience is that many assailants are cowardly (not nice) and can in fact be scared away with minimal retaliation. It's both risky and wasteful to inflict more harm than is required; I do not, for example, want to become the subject of a police investigation. How you got the idea that I think those who would attack someone else on the street might be nice people underneath their criminal exterior is beyond me.
You've made it clear that you don't feel safe walking away from a conflict unless your opponent is completely disabled, even if temporarily (but then how do you know they won't come after you later?). I think this is bunk and am quite willing to tolerate the risk that they'll attack again, because I feel confident about my ability to repel such attacks. I have in fact knocked someone down repeatedly, let him get back up, let him attack me again, and and a third time, until he got the message and stayed down.
Yes, this is dangerous, but so are a lot of things. It's dangerous in that it perpetuates a low-level danger in time, but I prefer an ongoing low-level risk to a sudden significant increase in risk. My judgments about risk in real-world situations have so far served me very well. It's true that any given street fight could kill, but it's also true that it probably won't unless you're quite unlucky, so I see no point in altering that probability if I don't need to. This is the same reason I avoid fights in the first place and am indifferent to mere verbal abuse or bluster - it is virtually never in my interest to initiate or escalate a conflict.
Assuming the attacker is somehow nice and should be scared away is insane in that situation.
I don't assume they're nice, in fact I make a habit of avoiding value judgments about people because they can so easily be misleading. My experience is that many assailants are cowardly (not nice) and can in fact be scared away with minimal retaliation. It's both risky and wasteful to inflict more harm than is required; I do not, for example, want to become the subject of a police investigation. How you got the idea that I think those who would attack someone else on the street might be nice people underneath their criminal exterior is beyond me.