Oh please. They were spoken as fighting words not as an academic statement of a counterfactual. And the man rose from his seat angry after saying them. Just as the employee was calling bluff on the passengers threat when he asked to be hit and not making a request for some sado masichism. If you defend the passenger by taking his words literally and out of the threatening context why do you not do the same for the employee...certainly asking to be hit is lierally the opposite of threatening to hit if taken literally? Context and body language and common sense needs to be applied rather than pedantic angles of ratiolization. The passenger was angry at the employee and threatened him. The employee was frustrated and angry back and called out the threat.
I didn’t comment on the FA’s words.
I’m still saying things were more nuanced than what you said. I wasn’t there and don’t know the circumstances, but his response could have been understandable if he saw another man mistreating a woman. Or he could just be a jerk. Thus why I described the situation is nuanced.