These stories should be plastered in schools everywhere.

[RandBlade]

Somewhere below beating someone to death, choking them to death, or in some other fashion violently bringing about their demise.

This time it is you that should re-read what was quoted. If you believe killing over theft is wrong then that's a logically valid position. What I object to is determining or judging it based upon the monetary value of the product stolen.

What Timbuk2 wrote sort of implied that a toothpaste or DVD player isn't worth killing over, but perhaps something more valuable like an Armani jacket, Rolex watch or new BMW is worth killing over. Either its OK to kill over property or its not, I don't see a monetary value that changes it from "not OK" to "well that death was reasonable".

This is interesting. Do you then believe the monetary value of the things stolen should not influence l the severity of the punishment?

When it comes to incarceration etc?-Yes.
When it comes to celebrating vigilante killings? No.

I don't see a monetary value that makes it OK to kill. The monetary value is redundant.

As Fuzzy so succinctly put;

Where do you draw the line Rand?

I put the line at life or death, I don't put the line on toothpaste or DVD players. I couldn't care less what was stolen. Why do you find toothpaste or DVD players to be relevant?

[Khendraja'aro]

Then maybe you should've said so from the start. Your initial statement was very ambiguous, so don't cry now when everyone misunderstood you. You don't get to be indignant if you're unable to convey your position.

[RandBlade]

I thought it was clear quoting him in context talking about toothpastes and DVDs. I would have responded sooner but started a new job this week and been super busy so this is the first time to respond.

I'd still like to know why bring up toothpaste if its not relevant? I don't think it matters if its toothpaste or DVDs or gold jewelry when it comes to vigilante killings. The quote clearly referred to toothpaste as if that was being measured as a relevant factor.

EDIT: Just to give the context back crystal clearly, it is toothpaste and DVDs discussed not that killing in any circumstance is wrong.

You've upgraded from toothpaste to DVD players.

Have a gold star. *pats head*

[Aimless]

If smoking/drinking education causes fewer people to drink and drive or smoke then clearly people respond to being exposed to the potential negative consequences of stupid decisions.

In reality, smoking and drinking education that focuses exclusively on threats--this is a smoker's lung, etc--don't do very well. Instead you get better results by teaching people about eg. peer pressure and how to resist it without feeling like a loser, helping them care about their own health and their lives, etc. And, apparently, by telling them that it ages your skin or something everyone knows that smoking is somehow "bad for your health". People do a lot of things that they know ("know") are dangerous. There are other factors at play. Just because you were one of those kids who were only taught motivation through threats and violence doesn't mean you were taught the right things or that what you learned has much relevance to the real world.

[RandBlade]

I don't think that's true at all. Proportions of population smoking are falling all the time for decades and I think that the threats play a major - not exclusive, but major if not main - part in that.

It may not get all smokers to quit but it certainly stops many eventually and gets many youngsters never to start in the first place.

[Steely Glint]

If smoking/drinking education causes fewer people to drink and drive or smoke then clearly people respond to being exposed to the potential negative consequences of stupid decisions. So if you plaster these kinds of stories in schools you would get fewer criminals due to them being deterred by the possible consequences.

I doubt anything you put in schools will have any meaningful impact on the decisions people make later, as adults.

[RandBlade]

Again I doubt that. May as well pull all kids out of school now if that was the case. I think good teachers do make a meaningful impact on the decisions adults make years later.

I use many meaningful things I learned at school regularly. Most meaningful one I think more people need to pay attention to, in order to avoid financial catastrophes is the basis of Compound Interest. Not borrowing unnecessarily, but saving instead due to the impact of usurious interest rates makes adult life easier just as not being an idiot smoking does.

[Enoch the Red]

I don't believe we should base our laws on morality.

What are you basing your belief that death is an acceptable punishment for theft on? Is it because you believe it will act as a deterrent? If that's the case, then why not use death as a punishment for all crimes?

I don't consider all sins equal. (Though all would eternally separate us from God without the sacrifice of Jesus)

Does your understanding of God's laws factor into the severity with which you believe crimes should be punished? Would you support a secular punishment that violated God's laws for a crime?

I'm uncertain why you think we should use biblical law for determining punishments. I don't take you as one who would advocate for theocracy.

I don't advocate a theocracy, but I would assume that if you are a Christian then you value the word of God. If God didn't believe death was an appropriate punishment for theft, why do you? Are you a better judge of man and his nature than God is?

I also don't believe in an Eye for an Eye. That's absurd - why would you be fearful of the law if it only punished you as far as you did something? If you steal a $100 should your punishment be the loss of a $100? Insanity! Since not all criminals are caught it would be a net benefit for the criminal element!

Then you are no doubt aware that the biblical punishment for theft wasn't an eye for an eye, it was the value of the item stolen plus twenty percent. Do you think God valued the life of the sinner more than the value of the goods they stole?

No I believe in laws that protect society. I don't care about justice per say, an equitable punishment is not what I want. I want a punishment that puts FEAR in the hearts of would be criminals. This FEAR would create less crime, leading to less people getting hurt and/or dying.

Then why not make people afraid by making death the default punishment for all infractions? Better yet, death by rape. Better still, forcing them to watch as their loved ones get raped to death, and then slowly disemboweling them. Fear is one way of governing, but a better way is to write the law on the heart of man.

[RandBlade]

No I believe in laws that protect society. I don't care about justice per say, an equitable punishment is not what I want. I want a punishment that puts FEAR in the hearts of would be criminals. This FEAR would create less crime, leading to less people getting hurt and/or dying.

This ignorance makes me so angry I can't put it into words.

You're such a loudmouth keyboard warrior on these issues, but do you actually work in a retail environment where this is applicable? Have you experienced being on the receiving end of theft? What about being the victim of armed robberies? I've been involved on the receiving end of both. And I can tell you that armed robberies are far more traumatic and horrific than regular theft.

Regular theft is a nuisance, an irritant. It certainly pisses you off. It is not a life or death issue though, it is actually by any sensible businessman known as a cost of business in retail that you work to minimise in the same way as you need to control your labour costs to survive. An armed robbery puts lives in danger and leaves people traumatised afterwards.

If a thief gets the same punishment as an armed robber, or even worse as you seem to suggest the same punishment as a murderer then what reason does a thief have to show restraint? Our laws punish thieves less than armed robbers who are punished less than murderers. If you punish them all the same then a thief may as well kill all witnesses and leave no survivors leading to MORE people dying.

Any sensible individual or organisation tries to keep people calm in the event of a robbery to minimise risk to life, not cause FEAR to those involved.

EDIT: PS in my experience most theft from retail is committed by employees. In your twisted world if I catch an employee stealing then rather than dismiss them and call the cops should I beat my colleague to death instead?

[Lewkowski]

What are you basing your belief that death is an acceptable punishment for theft on? Is it because you believe it will act as a deterrent? If that's the case, then why not use death as a punishment for all crimes?



Does your understanding of God's laws factor into the severity with which you believe crimes should be punished? Would you support a secular punishment that violated God's laws for a crime?



I don't advocate a theocracy, but I would assume that if you are a Christian then you value the word of God. If God didn't believe death was an appropriate punishment for theft, why do you? Are you a better judge of man and his nature than God is?



Then you are no doubt aware that the biblical punishment for theft wasn't an eye for an eye, it was the value of the item stolen plus twenty percent. Do you think God valued the life of the sinner more than the value of the goods they stole?



Then why not make people afraid by making death the default punishment for all infractions? Better yet, death by rape. Better still, forcing them to watch as their loved ones get raped to death, and then slowly disemboweling them. Fear is one way of governing, but a better way is to write the law on the heart of man.

In this particular thread I haven't advocated for the death penalty for theft. I've advocated celebrating those who defend their property or their employers property. In the past I've advocated 'frying' thieves but in reality I know that having capital punishment for it would never be politically feasible.

Secular punishment is secular punishment. I find it strange since I think you have libertarian tendencies want more religious discussion in our legal code. I also see some potential hypocrisy here - do you also tell religious folks who believe in a political view that you support that they may not be aligned with their beliefs? Somehow I don't think so.

A recurring theme is value/justice/weight of things. That's silly. Deterrence is the value I'm promoting. A life isn't worth a DVD but a life lost that leads to 100s of people not stealing and not going into a life of crime and potentially not becoming murders themselves is very very much worth it.

[Lewkowski]

This ignorance makes me so angry I can't put it into words.

You're such a loudmouth keyboard warrior on these issues, but do you actually work in a retail environment where this is applicable? Have you experienced being on the receiving end of theft? What about being the victim of armed robberies? I've been involved on the receiving end of both. And I can tell you that armed robberies are far more traumatic and horrific than regular theft.

Regular theft is a nuisance, an irritant. It certainly pisses you off. It is not a life or death issue though, it is actually by any sensible businessman known as a cost of business in retail that you work to minimise in the same way as you need to control your labour costs to survive. An armed robbery puts lives in danger and leaves people traumatised afterwards.

If a thief gets the same punishment as an armed robber, or even worse as you seem to suggest the same punishment as a murderer then what reason does a thief have to show restraint? Our laws punish thieves less than armed robbers who are punished less than murderers. If you punish them all the same then a thief may as well kill all witnesses and leave no survivors leading to MORE people dying.

Any sensible individual or organisation tries to keep people calm in the event of a robbery to minimise risk to life, not cause FEAR to those involved.

EDIT: PS in my experience most theft from retail is committed by employees. In your twisted world if I catch an employee stealing then rather than dismiss them and call the cops should I beat my colleague to death instead?

It sounds like you've had some traumatic instances involving theft and robbery. Wouldn't it have been much better if the people who stole were scared shitless by seeing video after video of thieves gunned down? Tackled and then killed? We would live in a better world with less thieves and robbers. My approach is to celebrate the people who kill them creating an environment of fear for would be criminals.

Also we aren't talking about judicial punishment here. We are talking about employees being slightly over zealous in their job. Its doubtful they were TRYING to kill the thief. But by celebrating their aggressive and brave actions we can do some good. If these types of stories gained more publicity we could see less crime.

[Enoch the Red]

In this particular thread I haven't advocated for the death penalty for theft. I've advocated celebrating those who defend their property or their employers property. In the past I've advocated 'frying' thieves but in reality I know that having capital punishment for it would never be politically feasible.

We aren't talking about political feasibility, we are talking about your moral compass and what you judge as right or wrong.

Secular punishment is secular punishment. I find it strange since I think you have libertarian tendencies want more religious discussion in our legal code. I also see some potential hypocrisy here - do you also tell religious folks who believe in a political view that you support that they may not be aligned with their beliefs? Somehow I don't think so.

I haven't said what I want with regard to our legal code, what I have done is ask you what you want out of it. A question that you've dodged. I'll ask it again. Do you believe that a secular punishment should violate God's law?

A recurring theme is value/justice/weight of things. That's silly. Deterrence is the value I'm promoting. A life isn't worth a DVD but a life lost that leads to 100s of people not stealing and not going into a life of crime and potentially not becoming murders themselves is very very much worth it.

So you are saying there is a calculus to the value of human life? Would you kill every thousandth person who drove under the influence to potentially act as a deterrent to others? Every ten thousandth person who jay-walked? Every hundred thousandth person who cheated on their taxes? Is that really something you are comfortable with?

Also we aren't talking about judicial punishment here. We are talking about employees being slightly over zealous in their job. Its doubtful they were TRYING to kill the thief. But by celebrating their aggressive and brave actions we can do some good. If these types of stories gained more publicity we could see less crime.

I think the reverse is actually true. I don't know the specifics in this case, and whether or not what happened could be justifiable, but I do believe the more cavalierly we treat life the more violent crime we will see.

[Lewkowski]

I believe that secular laws shouldn't be based on God's law. Not that I think anything is wrong with God's law but once we combine the secular with the religious we invite corruption. Look at the popes selling indulgences in the middle ages for a great example of the dangers of that kind of system.

There absolutely is a calculus to the value of human life. That's a taboo concept but when you get into the weeds people do weigh life on a scale. I'm not concerned about jay walking but if you did want less jay walking you could put harsh punishments to prevent it.

In regards to your last thing about the more cavalierly we treat life the more violent crime you see I disagree. What I think we see in the real world is that the more crime we have the more cavalierly we treat life.

[Steely Glint]

Again I doubt that. May as well pull all kids out of school now if that was the case. I think good teachers do make a meaningful impact on the decisions adults make years later.

Lewkowski has spoken of quote, 'plastering', it all over schools which I took to mean posters featuring a hoodlam bleeding out with a gunshot wound and 'IF U FIEV U DIE!!111" or some other keen insight in big red letters. I seriously doubt anyone would even remember such posters when they're in their 20s, and if they do would hardly take them seriously enough - remembering and evaluating now with the eyes of an adult - to base decisions on.

I use many meaningful things I learned at school regularly. Most meaningful one I think more people need to pay attention to, in order to avoid financial catastrophes is the basis of Compound Interest. Not borrowing unnecessarily, but saving instead due to the impact of usurious interest rates makes adult life easier just as not being an idiot smoking does.

I honestly can't remember a single fact or concept I learned at school which I can remember today, let alone find useful. The one exception is the fact I can spell reasonably well despite having dyslexia, which was down to a specialized department at the school I was at. Of course that doesn't mean school was worthless, I may not have learned anything lasting but I learned how to learn.

[Steely Glint]

It sounds like you've had some traumatic instances involving theft and robbery. Wouldn't it have been much better if the people who stole were scared shitless by seeing video after video of thieves gunned down? Tackled and then killed? We would live in a better world with less thieves and robbers. My approach is to celebrate the people who kill them creating an environment of fear for would be criminals.

Your Grand Moff Tarkin bullshit shows no appreciation for how people actually respond to either genuine fear or, worse, failed attempts to intimidate them.

[Enoch the Red]

I believe that secular laws shouldn't be based on God's law. Not that I think anything is wrong with God's law but once we combine the secular with the religious we invite corruption. Look at the popes selling indulgences in the middle ages for a great example of the dangers of that kind of system.

That's not answering the question. Would you respect a secular punishment that violated God's law? Would it be appropriate to punish tax evasion with rape?

There absolutely is a calculus to the value of human life. That's a taboo concept but when you get into the weeds people do weigh life on a scale. I'm not concerned about jay walking but if you did want less jay walking you could put harsh punishments to prevent it.

So, if I am understanding you correctly, the reason you believe it is okay to execute shoplifters is because it's a crime you care about? In that case, would it also be valid to prosecute jaywalking capitally if it happened to be a crime you cared about? You don't see a problem with structuring laws in this way? What about people who deeply care about tax evasion? Should tax evaders be put to death because it's something that someone is concerned about?

In regards to your last thing about the more cavalierly we treat life the more violent crime you see I disagree. What I think we see in the real world is that the more crime we have the more cavalierly we treat life.

So if one hundred percent of the population jaywalked on a regular basis you believe that would correspond to a decrease with the value we place on life? How did you come to that conclusion?

[Lewkowski]

I wouldn't necessarily 'respect' a secular punishment that violate's God's law but realizing that man's law can never be perfect I wouldn't campaign against for that sole reason.

I care about crime but not all crime. Could care less about jay walking for example. Could care less about violating BS ordinances about when you can water your lawn for example.

Tax evaders when it can be proven it was done deliberately I wouldn't have a problem with harsh punishment. However you get far less entertaining stories about private citizens defending themselves against tax evaders. It would be rather boring to talk about, good for maybe one thread.

Your last sentence confuses me - I suppose I'm partially to blame for being lazy about the quote function. Basically I'm saying harsh punishments don't lead to people treating life cavalierly. Instead the flip side is that in high crime areas life is treated cavalierly - nothing to do with jay walking.

[Lewkowski]

Your Grand Moff Tarkin bullshit shows no appreciation for how people actually respond to either genuine fear or, worse, failed attempts to intimidate them.

The attempt of liberals to ignore basic human psychology is amazing. We seek pleasure and fear pain. Increase the amount of pain and the likelihood (extremely important btw, currently DP not very effective as a detterent because its used so rarely) of pain and you will have people try to avoid doing those activities. This isn't rocket science.

[Enoch the Red]

I wouldn't necessarily 'respect' a secular punishment that violate's God's law but realizing that man's law can never be perfect I wouldn't campaign against for that sole reason.

By what reason would you campaign against rape as a punishment for tax evasion?

I care about crime but not all crime. Could care less about jay walking for example. Could care less about violating BS ordinances about when you can water your lawn for example.

And you believe that the foundations of law in this country should be based on only what you care about? Do you believe that your bugaboos are the only bugaboos that should be used to determine judiciousness?

Tax evaders when it can be proven it was done deliberately I wouldn't have a problem with harsh punishment. However you get far less entertaining stories about private citizens defending themselves against tax evaders. It would be rather boring to talk about, good for maybe one thread.

Not a harsh punishment, death. Do you believe that is a suitable punishment for the crime?

Your last sentence confuses me - I suppose I'm partially to blame for being lazy about the quote function. Basically I'm saying harsh punishments don't lead to people treating life cavalierly. Instead the flip side is that in high crime areas life is treated cavalierly - nothing to do with jay walking.

If as a society you say it's okay to kill someone because they stole your DVD player, what impression does that give about the value of life in your culture? Would you say it would be more or less than the value of the DVD being taken?

[Lewkowski]

By what reason would you campaign against rape as a punishment for tax evasion?



And you believe that the foundations of law in this country should be based on only what you care about? Do you believe that your bugaboos are the only bugaboos that should be used to determine judiciousness?



Not a harsh punishment, death. Do you believe that is a suitable punishment for the crime?



If as a society you say it's okay to kill someone because they stole your DVD player, what impression does that give about the value of life in your culture? Would you say it would be more or less than the value of the DVD being taken?

I'd probably have some reservations about tax evasion being punishable by death but I would be open to it if there were conditions on it. First - simply the tax code. Two - clearly outline the punishment. Three - ensure reasonable oversight, IRS isn't a trustworthy institution afterall.

The foundations of law should be based on the basic social contract. I'll pay my taxes and you make sure people can't randomly kill me or take my stuff.

Speaking of the value of life - what makes you think life can't have a negative value? IE does an unrepentant terrorist cause a net negative to the quality of life of those around him? Is saving a terrorist creating a net negative value? Back to the article I'm saying its OK to kill people who are actively trying to take your stuff. That values life - because it values the time (a finite resource) it took to gather those items. I value the lives of criminals less than the lives of the good honest hard working people of America. And almost all rational people agree with me but they will say stupid things like that "all life if precious" but give absolutely no thought as to why. Lives have weight on the equation - I know of NO ONE who honestly believes all life is equal. And if all life is not equal than you can assign comparative values to it.

[Khendraja'aro]

Well, Lewk, placing comparative values on life and regarding criminals as being unworthy of it, my country just knows a liiiiittle bit about that. And where it leads.

You'd have felt right at home.

[Lewkowski]

Well, Lewk, placing comparative values on life and regarding criminals as being unworthy of it, my country just knows a liiiiittle bit about that. And where it leads.

You'd have felt right at home.

There should be a rule that people from Germany shouldn't be able to Godwin a thread.

[Enoch the Red]

I'd probably have some reservations about tax evasion being punishable by death but I would be open to it if there were conditions on it. First - simply the tax code. Two - clearly outline the punishment. Three - ensure reasonable oversight, IRS isn't a trustworthy institution afterall.

By what reason would you campaign against rape as a punishment for tax evasion?

The foundations of law should be based on the basic social contract. I'll pay my taxes and you make sure people can't randomly kill me or take my stuff.

And the social contract that we've agreed to has at its heart proportionality when meting out a punishment. Why not prevent all bad decisions by having the penalties be death?

Speaking of the value of life - what makes you think life can't have a negative value? IE does an unrepentant terrorist cause a net negative to the quality of life of those around him? Is saving a terrorist creating a net negative value?

Absolutely. I'm not arguing that there are no conditions under which human life can't be taken. I would be willing to kill someone who posed a threat to myself, my family or my loved ones. I'm curious about the logical chain you could use to equate terrorism with stealing a DVD player.

All that being said I would much rather not kill someone than kill them. I personally derive no joy from the idea of a dead terrorist.

Back to the article I'm saying its OK to kill people who are actively trying to take your stuff. That values life - because it values the time (a finite resource) it took to gather those items. I value the lives of criminals less than the lives of the good honest hard working people of America.

That doesn't show you value life. It would be akin to me arguing that killing jaywalkers shows the value of life because they are somehow stealing a motorist's time. You are cheapening life. Life is more important than things. That doesn't mean property isn't important, it just means that human life is more important.

Just to reiterate, I'm not privy to the particulars in this case. I believe that the store has every right to try and stop a shop lifter. If the shoplifter became aggressive and assaulted the store employee then they have the right to defend themselves. What I don't believe is that the employee would have the right to pull a gun and shoot the person walking out the door because all thieves deserve death.

And almost all rational people agree with me but they will say stupid things like that "all life if precious" but give absolutely no thought as to why. Lives have weight on the equation - I know of NO ONE who honestly believes all life is equal. And if all life is not equal than you can assign comparative values to it.

I don't place an equal value on all life. I value the lives of my family more than I value a stranger. I value my life more than I value the life of an attacker. That doesn't make a DVD player more valuable than the life of a shoplifter.

[Timbuk2]

I put the line at life or death, I don't put the line on toothpaste or DVD players. I couldn't care less what was stolen. Why do you find toothpaste or DVD players to be relevant?

Wow where's a whoosh parrot when you need one. That went straight over your head Rand.



Hint: I don't find it relevant.

It's only relevance is in pointing out Lewk's absurd position. Which is why I said it.

So we're all on the same page, and at the risk of repeating myself; property (of ANY value, Rand) is not of greater value than life.

Onwards ...

[Timbuk2]

This ignorance makes me so angry I can't put it into words.

You're such a loudmouth keyboard warrior on these issues, but do you actually work in a retail environment where this is applicable? Have you experienced being on the receiving end of theft? What about being the victim of armed robberies? I've been involved on the receiving end of both. And I can tell you that armed robberies are far more traumatic and horrific than regular theft.

Regular theft is a nuisance, an irritant. It certainly pisses you off. It is not a life or death issue though, it is actually by any sensible businessman known as a cost of business in retail that you work to minimise in the same way as you need to control your labour costs to survive. An armed robbery puts lives in danger and leaves people traumatised afterwards.

If a thief gets the same punishment as an armed robber, or even worse as you seem to suggest the same punishment as a murderer then what reason does a thief have to show restraint? Our laws punish thieves less than armed robbers who are punished less than murderers. If you punish them all the same then a thief may as well kill all witnesses and leave no survivors leading to MORE people dying.

Any sensible individual or organisation tries to keep people calm in the event of a robbery to minimise risk to life, not cause FEAR to those involved.

EDIT: PS in my experience most theft from retail is committed by employees. In your twisted world if I catch an employee stealing then rather than dismiss them and call the cops should I beat my colleague to death instead?

This is well said.

[Timbuk2]

Also we aren't talking about judicial punishment here. We are talking about employees being slightly over zealous in their job. Its doubtful they were TRYING to kill the thief. But by celebrating their aggressive and brave actions we can do some good. If these types of stories gained more publicity we could see less crime.

I think the reverse is actually true. I don't know the specifics in this case, and whether or not what happened could be justifiable, but I do believe the more cavalierly we treat life the more violent crime we will see.

I would agree.

[Steely Glint]

The attempt of liberals to ignore basic human psychology is amazing. We seek pleasure and fear pain. Increase the amount of pain and the likelihood (extremely important btw, currently DP not very effective as a detterent because its used so rarely) of pain and you will have people try to avoid doing those activities. This isn't rocket science.

So why do people join the army, then?

[Khendraja'aro]

There should be a rule that people from Germany shouldn't be able to Godwin a thread.

Why, what ever happened to your precious Freedom of Speech? You just showed your true colours, sir.

[LittleFuzzy]

The attempt of liberals to ignore basic human psychology is amazing. We seek pleasure and fear pain. Increase the amount of pain and the likelihood (extremely important btw, currently DP not very effective as a detterent because its used so rarely) of pain and you will have people try to avoid doing those activities. This isn't rocket science.

Your own ignorance of psychology is amazing. You don't understand what fear is, psychologically. We do seek pleasure and avoid pain but the emotional response you're referring to is a reaction to a stimulus with perceived immediacy. Deterrence doesn't create fear, it creates caution, which is something else entirely.

Well, Lewk, placing comparative values on life and regarding criminals as being unworthy of it, my country just knows a liiiiittle bit about that. And where it leads.

You'd have felt right at home.

Feels to me like this is the insurance perspective talking, and Lewk's inability to understand things like proxies and competing interests.

[Lebanese Dragon]

I think having high self-esteem and a good education is the key to reducing violence, and theft. And a whole slew of other problems. Scare tactics can be useful but they're not a long-run solution unless you want to live in some terrible society. Are we trying to elevate mankind or turn us back into some sort of beast, and that's the question we have to ask ourself. Lewk you should ask yourself how much do you love yourself, how much of a genuine badass do you think you are, because if you come from a place of strength and power you naturally want to give that to others. You want the thief to wake up and change, and understand his way of thinking is wrong. If you're afraid of other people, or afraid of who you are, you're natural tendency is to wish failure on others, to bring them down. So you may wish to figure out that stuff for yourself and from there have a new outlook on life, and new objectives.