What is the ultimate acceptable insult threshold before challenging to duel or exercising assaulting?

Question

Every minority group i can think of has overcome oppressive insults by wearing it as a badge of honor, example: Quakers.
It is a question of taking the first strike option off the table.

Answer 1

Physical violence is never an acceptable reaction to verbal insults.

Answer 2

It is no black and white matter. The new threshold is diplomacy, and tolerance tolerance tolerance. Ultimate acceptable insults mean nothing if life is not in danger yet. At state level, the integrity and sovereignty is not in danger a for response.

The right response is still talk talk talk, or a chance for diplomacy to work according to the words of Kolfi Anan. Even any strike or challenge has to be planned so that the whole world believes in the aggrieved party. Winning the war also can lose the credibility of an argument for the war against Iraq.

Answer 3

Duelling is unlawful, period. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that: "There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

However, the Court has been steadily backing away from this ruling. You might want to look here:

Answer 4

Quakers are a religious group, a minority they maybe, but they were at one time one of the larger religious groups in america.

Anyway, I suppose it's more a question of tolerance of the individual, or the leader of a group, though some may act on their own, there's still that question of threshold of the group.

Answer 5

Words are only words. We choose to ignore them, or to take action in some form. Physical assault over mere words is really not an option. Jeez, could you imagine how many people would be struck by lightening if God took all words to Heart?? Pride is a wonderful thing to have and behold - leave it go at that.

Answer 6

i'd threaten you with lifelong obscurity. If that did not artwork, per chance i ought to convince the ghost of Margaret Thatcher to hang-out you each and every and each and every time you had lustful suggestions for a appealing female. even as all else failed, Play-Doh and stupid string should be extremely deadly....or no less than, comical. What am I putting forward, in spite of the indisputable fact that?! i go right into a duel with a guy who wears hats with suggestive appendages! perchance we ought to always purely whip them out and see whose is longer! (Our tongues, it is!)

Answer 7

Turn the other cheek.
You looking for to fight somebody - and you want
to know all there is to know about disarming
your opponent?
Duels are out! Not in your country?
Under any circumstance, you don't hit a little
old lady with glasses and a walking stick.
You never know who is hiding under that disguise.

Answer 8

Well I'm mostly a pasifist, but enough insults will cause the altercation to become physical.

Answer 9

It depends on the tone of the verbal insult.

Answer 10

Turn the other cheek, turn the other cheek, turn the other cheek, turn the other cheek....
At what point do you protect your ***???
When it becomes apparent that your enemy doesn't care about a peace full resolution to his apparent prejudice or misguided politics.