No one is saying that Pain. I argue that one crime does not allow a counter crime, or in other words that people are not allowed in passing arbitrary punishment on someone commiting a crime without taking their own punishment for commiting a counter crime. I wouldn't just sit by if someone went into my home and watch. I would either flee or put up a fight. However, if I fought, I would go for incapacitating the burglar instead of causing a maximum harm. It may include injurying the burglar though, especially if threatened. The only differance between us is that I'm not a self centered fluff, blind to anyone elses perspective. I would thus be more likely to "accept" punishment for it from society.



...and your stance disgusts me. People like me is what's wrong with the world? I have commited no crimes (not counting stealing some candy when I was <10yo and stuff that most people do, like occasionally passing a speed limit). I want to minimize pain and suffering for ALL parts included, how that makes me bad from your perspective is beyond me. Meanwhile, you yourself act like some kind of sadist who'd like to increase the suffering of those you can categorize in a certain way.



You're not very bright are you? This is not what I'm arguing, but it's pretty close to what you are, with the only differance of to whom you should be able to commit the counter crime on. If someone commits a crime to someone, I argue it DOES NOT warrant some kind of right to commit a counter crime. Not versus other people (including me), as in your rethoric question, nor towards the offender of the original crime.