ugh. thugs.
pro-tip: if you don't want somebody to run you over with their car, don't smash their window in while they're in the car. if you do smash their window in, you don't really have a strong argument for generating sympathy.
i continue to find it hard to understand why people develop these absurd tactics to deal with disputes. i can generally at least get my head around it. like, if you're hungry and you can't get food, you might steal food. or if you're addicted to something and you're freaking out, you might go to extreme lengths to find it. certain rules about personal autonomy might be broken in the process, but there's a logic to it.
it's this violence-in-response-to-undesired-social-behaviour thing i don't get, not even as a dominant monkey thing. we're generally more successful when we co-operate and it's well documented in our own species as well as in other species. why do so many people have such a hard time getting their head around this while others grasp it as toddlers?
i guess i get that there's some variation, here. but i don't think that kind of behaviour has a genetic basis, it's an individualistic behavioural response. i often like to explain things in terms of conditioning or reacting to experiences, but i just can't generate a path where this behaviour is understood as rational.
i'm just left arguing that we're quite irrational creatures that often seem to lack an ability to really think through what we're doing.