No, that's a misunderstanding. I am not making that equation at all. And even if that was the way you wanted to read it, you'd have it backwards. The person criticizing Rogan is the one I "would be equating" with theft and murder. But, of course, I'm not saying that either. You've simply misunderstood me.

I was giving an example of someone saying something that attacks something that's important to me, namely, my property and my well-being. And using this to linguistically illustrate how, even though I definitely believe that my property and my well-being are something that's right for me to maintain, I might still get defensive about it when someone attacks it.

In my example, the thief is the attacker and I am the defender. In the original context, the Rogan-criticizer is the attacker (of a belief, basically) and the Rogan-listener is the defender.

My point was to show that people get defensive when something important to them is attacked, regardless of whether they're "pretending not to know its bad" or not. I certainly am not pretending not to know that my well-being is bad.

I know its tempting to want to take every opportunity to dunk on the Rogan listeners and be like "lol, they're getting defensive because deep down they know they're wrong!", but that is just a nonsensical way of thinking. Especially when they've already given us a legitimate reason to dunk on them, which is that they like to listen to a moron.

Does that help clarify what I was saying?