Yeah, I know what "weasel word" means. And you're using it to bait. Because most folks use it NOT to avoid being forthright, but because the term works well for most folks having reasonable discussion with the intent of understanding each other, rather than the intent of baiting a discussion.
You make the claim that people use it to avoid being honest. Yet many people have reasonable discussions about the concept/topic without such obvious baiting and acrimony. When they disagree about the definition, they either agree on a definition for the discussion or debate the reasons for their definition. I've never seen anyone use it to avoid honesty or purposely to confuse people. The differences in definitions are mostly nuance, so in most discussions what is/is not part of the definition is of minor significance.
Okay, so let me be blunt. You use self-defense as a weasel word. By that I mean you use it - intentionally - do derail discussions. Other people have reasonable discussions and debates around it, then you show up with your own agenda and hard bias and purposely derail those discussions. You appear to have no intention of actually getting somewhere useful with your hyperbole, because you don't suggest a different method of communication. You just stand on the side saying, "doesn't mean that, has no meaning, you can't use that word honestly."
the problem with this is there aren't many consensual fights, its tends that one is a lot keener on fighting than the other and he is just standing his ground/ declining to back down rather than consenting
well no, that's not uk law, an assault has taken place when the other person has put you in fear of your safety, first by ridding at me, then by threaning violence, once that assault has occurred your allowed to defend yourself by striking first, there no requirement to mitigate or retreat or gve them first punch, those are issues to be considered by the court, but as long as they believe that you believed your safety was at risk then your fine
1i was stood out side the trafford centre with my "nephew " (and his dad,) id taken hm under my wing when he was 9 and being seriously bullied at school, he was 17 at this points and some guy walking past made a nasty comment about us smoking near the doorway, before I could speak he said, "talk to me like that you stupid fat bald **** and I'm slap you., " which is right out of my play book .he dad turned , smiled at me and said " your work here is done"
It can be depending on the circumstances. Let's say... Some obnoxious bloke insults you and challenges you to a fight. You in turn respond, assume a fighting stance and engage. That could be considered mutual consent. Same situation, bloke insults you, challenges you to a fight, but you keep walking. He continues and attacks, you react with your m.a. skills and overcome him. Second situation you defended yourself. This is over simplified. Fights can and are often considered consensual depending on the circumstances leading up to the event.
considered by who and in what part of the world ?
It's a lot of the same skills (if we talk about self-defense as the act of actively defending against an attack, rather than prevention), but I wouldn't classify a consensual fight as self-defense. It's an arbitrary division in some ways, but I think most people make a similar distinction, because they are thinking of it conceptually.
