Snowman,
In learning to set policy you should 'get down to brass tacks'
"The Number 2's 'maliciousness' is referring to the hate"
and inferred or referred to should be clear not an excuse in defense/justification later, after stating policy.
By the act of the perception in breaking #2 the following would not be clear it turns the psyche in a direction. E.G. once you steer to turn a corner, unless you direct the momentum back to a linear fashion you are just doing circles. "And as for the threat business... I was partly joking." and the breaking of #2 is re-enforced in more synapse.
Bad Stuff? "That is about as much bad stuff that I have ever done."
You have clearly stated that things that would make -The Dude puke, you could handle because of experience or "Grit" as you put it, this goes against morality and the good book that you draw so much from.
I see this as an 'Oxide moron' (I can't see your true colors) which should not show through when setting policy, else you are Preaching.
Do you think it is possible to render something/person un-conscience by "your CONSCIENCE is fixin to be thrashed without mercy.- And you can't spank a conscience and threatens someones life too" -"thrashing without mercy" not only sounds threatening, how would you know when your object at the other end is rendered un-conscience, or god forbid it be a child and/or it borders on mental abuse? (How would you thrash something with no mercy?)
"Spanking' sounds 'Kinky' I will leave your private desires to yourself , not so exposed at this time.
HONK! sa you go down/up your 2way street I would wave if I noticed you

P.S.
"Don't you know that love threatens those who threatens love."
This is as defensive as anything, so it probably has an offense. and this is an opening remark for setting policy?
Regards,
J.