The right to strike? (not withdraw labour!)

No, if he responded with a weapon that would be unreasonable force and open to a charge of GBH.

 

Legally I could easily make the case that a man randomly and deliberating insulting my partner in a public space constitutes a threat, I only have to prove a reasonable belief that mine or my partners safety was threatened. Invasion of ones personal body space can also be deemed a threat, once someone invades the personal body space without warning of me or my partner then they are going down, painfully. No charge could stick, unless of course if I used unreasonable force. In which case I would get away from the scene as soon as possible afterwards. I can tell you something for nothing, most people are convicted of crimes by the evidence from their own mouth.

 

You'd have to make the case that his behavior could be reasonably considered threatening. If he was sitting with his hands in his lap simply spewing out insults... you'd have a hard case to make.​

 

In which case I would never tell a court his hands were in his lap. There would be no reason to present my case to the court in the worst possible light. It wouldnt make it to court anyway.

 

He might. ​

 

My answer is No, verbal abuse is not justification for physical aggression. He should however be allowed to respond in kind.

 

Look at it this way, the man's verbal abuse is an invitation. Your acceptance, or not, is signalled by your response, or lack thereof.

It is your free choice to accept his invitation or not. If you accept it you become an equal participant in whatever it leads to. You are not an innocent party, you are not defending anything, you are joining his game, willingly, and should not be exempt from whatever consequences arrive.

I have seen this scenario played out hundreds of times. Around here, it begins with
"What are you lookin at?"
If you look him in the eye and respond
"Not f*ing much."
You have agreed to join the game and to go wherever it leads, up to and including fisticuffs and a fight to the death, depending.
If you just mumble some apology and move away you have signalled that you have declined the invitation and, while you may be abused verbally some more, further engagement is not expected.

If you are the sort of person who blithely wanders about and expects their ignorance to protect them you will be generally safe if you avoid all such invitations as those posited in the OP. It is not your world, the planet does not rotate around your person. Your views are not universally held and personal ideas of honour and insult can create more trouble for you than you can ever possibly be prepared to deal with.

It is all well and god for your ego to pretend you are the tough guy but what is the price of that and are you willing to pay it over the trivial and inconsequential comments of some bum?
Look at it this way, you are the one who chooses to make it consequential, possibly hugely consequential, or walk away, enjoy your day, and laugh about it later.

 

Why are you disappointed? You asked if you antagonize someone into hitting you, are you then legally justified in shooting him? I don't think so.

 

I do take your point, however, my example was based on and aimed at typical Westerns, not Buddist monks, nor those that profess to be buddists, in Western countries.

I like many of the principles and philosophies of it, it must be said, and I concur with much of it, that also need to be mentioned.

But let's be honest, most people in the West don't meditate, let alone take on and practice such things. Would it be better if everyone did? Sure, but you have to remember that there is no chance of that happening, since the people in the West often cannot even adhrere to the principles of their own religion, the primary one, Christianity/Catholicism.

All of that said, buddist monks are often not as non violent as maybe you think.


********************************************************

Since contemporary issues and my research seemed to be converging, I thought: What better way to study Buddhist activism than to observe Buddhist monks engaged in peace(*)making? Unfortunately, I found very little of this. During my visits between 2006 and 2008, southern Thai monks shared with me the challenges of living in fear-infested communities. All but a few concentrated on survival.

Peacemaking was the last thing on their minds.

The constant fear and violence took a toll on them. Monks talked about the guns they now kept at their bedsides. Others spoke heatedly about the violent militant attacks on Buddhist civilians and monasteries. Although the cause of the violence was and is multilayered—owing much to corruption, drug trade, and corporatization—many monks also felt Islam was to blame. In their minds, the conflict was anchored to a larger discussion of religious violence: Muslims against Buddhists.


Read more: http://www.utne.com/GreatWriting/Monks-with-Guns-Buddhist.aspx#ixzz1ptCNeEh2

 

I'm not a monk. Not even a Buddhist (although there is a ton of great wisdom in Buddhist teachings). I'm just a regular guy that likes to be chill because it feels good. I like to be in control of myself because it allows me more choice in the quality of life that I live.

I understand what you are getting at, but my point is simply this. I'm not doing anything that everyone else can't do. It's true that most will never do it, but it's not because they can't. They simply choose not to. Thus if you are choosing not to control yourself, it doesn't make much sense to excuse someone for getting physical over an insult.

 

No right to strike for being verbally insulted.

If the guy is really persistent despite being told to let it go or the incident repeats multiple times, it may be considered harrassment, tough. So in that case it may not be protected under freedom of speech. Still no right to strike, tough.

 

In my view, it would simply be wrong to launch a physical attack in retaliation to a verbal one. If they wish to return the attack as a verbal one, that seem perfectly fair, but getting phyical is over stepping the boundries when there is no reason for it.

 

Its hard to visualize that scenero---unless the stranger is psycho. I've had incidences where mentally ill people...probably homeless....have done that.

The thing is....if the couple started to walk away and the man followed them---I think there would be probable cause to be physical.

 

The couple should just leave.

Generally, it's almost always a conservative thinking religious kook who conducts themselves in such a boorish, confrontational manner, doing as they always do, trying to push some religion fairy tale or political point of view, so to engage them is like throwing gas on a lit match.

If the nutjob follows and continues his tirades, they still need to just keep going.

If the kook touches one of them then a withering beatdown is in order.

 

Yeah....well you know...here I am sitting on the bench (this thread) minding my own business and answering the topic on hand---and some guy sits beside me (in this thread) and starts ranting about Conservative Christians, which I am.

Who was more confrontational?

But, I know you aren't a homeless psyco.

 

I don't think I've EVER had a liberal come to my door to bloviate about his religious beliefs, nor have I ever encountered a liberal in a park who just barged into my world and started babbling on and on about some political or philosophical viewpoint.

I HAVE had many occasions to be treated to unsolicited religious psychobabble bullsht from religious christian kooks knocking on my door, and routinely encounter conservative nutjobs handing out their bumper stickers, however.

 

Sure. Ok. I'm walking away now.

 

Visit California. I'd suggest starting the trip in Berkeley.​

 

Sometimes the first strike is the telling one though...