I'm a bit buffled, about you not seeing what I said. 

The "soul" of the words define them not the words action and reaction. There will always be a difference but that difference that you took note of, according to the topic at hand, is absolutely irrelvant. It's like we were talking about cars and I told you both had the same engines and you said thier colors make em different. Yes the colors do... but were talking about engines and if the engines are the same then that's what makes the engines the same.

Example: a police man see's you getting beaten up in the streets, pities you and goes after the criminal, beats him up, restricting himself to certian amount of force[also pitying him] and captures him. While before that happened, you were trying to bully [just pushed him once] the criminal and the criminal reacted [note I used reacted as in reaction] and was beating you into a blooding pulp, with no pity. Do you understand now? The differences?

G-d Bless

FYI- I'm not insulting you in anyway right now ok? and please don't insult me here aswell.

Your base assumption for your entire argument (the bolded, if it's not correct me) is faulty, therefore the rest jsut crumbles away. I can't find a single reason why I will HAVE to feel bad about treating you badly if you treat me nicely. Not a single one. I frankly find that opinion highly ignorant. It's like you've never been through school and seen bullies or what not.

Now, I'm sure you read the rest of my post, but it doesn't sound like you did. I went on to say that this only applies when Hank cares about Sally and stuff, you know? You certainly have no reason to feel bad for being mean to me because I'm some random kid on the internet. On the other hand, if you were talking to someone you care about, you will feel bad about treating me harshly when I'm still being nice. Unless you're an entirely antisocial element, that is. That is not the case for the majority of people in the world. Not yet, at least.

I'd actually try to make an argument for when you don't particularly care for the person in certain cases as well.  You don't always need a reason to feel bad about being mean. Sometimes, it just feels wrong. That's because of something called morals, which are still what the majority of the world bases its daily operation upon. Of course I've faced bullies and such. But to assume that the only way to stop them is taking an eye for an eye or to, even more ridiculously, think that that's how everyone is, is an extremely pessimistic and flat out incorrect view on society in general.

I may come off as highly ignorant, but I'm basing this all off my personal experiences as a helplessly socially awkward child. Maybe people get worse as you grow older. I wouldn't know. In any case, since I already have plenty of exceptions, it's already clear to me that this is hardly a rule that applies everywhere.

By the way, I'm not trying to argue that everyone ought to be entirely submissive or that there won't be times when you have to retaliate. I'm just saying that to generalize these exceptional situations to be the norm and to treat generally avoidable conflict as inevitable and morally acceptable is offensive to most of human society and an almost sickening idea in general.

Makes you wonder why some fuck ups try to preach otherwise.....

I'm beginning to detest cynicism now. This really feels stupid.

Honestly, people are not that simple. If only because of values hammered into you through society, if someone treats you decently, you'll feel - oh, I don't know - bad about treating them badly in response. There's a reason for which calling someone an animal has a negative connotation despite being biologically correct. We consider ourselves smarter than "oh, she gave me a treat - she must really like me doing this". (I dare say that this isn't even entirely true for animals.) When Sally acts so nicely despite Hank's actions, he'll go "why did she do that? I was mean to her". Unless he is an utter moron, he will realize that she was hurt by what he said and is therefore trying to please him now. Since he is in a relationship with her, he'll feel bad about putting her through pain. This is what any relationship of any value in human society is based upon - caring for the other person as well as yourself. If he continues being rotten, he doesn't care for her at all, which means they might as well have a divorce. Therefore, since he does already care for her, he'll see that, by most of society's values, she is being an awfully nice person, feel remorseful for his actions which hurt someone he cared for who is being nice regardless and consequently improve his behaviour.

Now, of course, this is only for mutually caring relationships. If Sally and Hank don't care for each other (again, divorce would be best), then she might as well tell him to go to hell. Unless she's incapable of defending herself for some reason (as in, when it gets serious enough to drag the law into this) and Hank can become worse without any possible reprecussions, this ought to get her a better result. For other forced relationships with coworkers, classmates and others whom you don't have much of a choice but to be with, the OP's logic probably applies. They usually don't care for you and only for their own benefit so you have to be tough with them so you don't get pushed around. (If they're agreable enough people, you can try your luck being decent, but I suppose that's too much to ask.)

I'll admit I have no PhD in human psychology, but several years of unavoidable social interaction have given me enough data to debunk a theory that is obviously flawed and has rarely applied to those I know in real life. Stuff like this is almost entirely like a self-fulfilling prophecy - if you convince everyone that this is true, they'll change their actions to match what they think is what is normal and what should happen, causing everyone to have to be rotten to each other to get through life. The reason you even have to be firm with people you're forced to interact with is because it's becoming less and less of a moral and social obligation to "be nice", as it were, or even appreciate such a quality.

Now, I'm sure you read the rest of my post, but it doesn't sound like you did. I went on to say that this only applies when Hank cares about Sally and stuff, you know? You certainly have no reason to feel bad for being mean to me because I'm some random kid on the internet. On the other hand, if you were talking to someone you care about, you will feel bad about treating me harshly when I'm still being nice. Unless you're an entirely antisocial element, that is. That is not the case for the majority of people in the world. Not yet, at least.

I'd actually try to make an argument for when you don't particularly care for the person in certain cases as well.  You don't always need a reason to feel bad about being mean. Sometimes, it just feels wrong. That's because of something called morals, which are still what the majority of the world bases its daily operation upon. Of course I've faced bullies and such. But to assume that the only way to stop them is taking an eye for an eye or to, even more ridiculously, think that that's how everyone is, is an extremely pessimistic and flat out incorrect view on society in general.

I may come off as highly ignorant, but I'm basing this all off my personal experiences as a helplessly socially awkward child. Maybe people get worse as you grow older. I wouldn't know. In any case, since I already have plenty of exceptions, it's already clear to me that this is hardly a rule that applies everywhere.

By the way, I'm not trying to argue that everyone ought to be entirely submissive or that there won't be times when you have to retaliate. I'm just saying that to generalize these exceptional situations to be the norm and to treat generally avoidable conflict as inevitable and morally acceptable is offensive to most of human society and an almost sickening idea in general.

It's funny considering all the people you ecompassed when saying this.