According to you:
1. If you are easy to harm, you deserve to be harmed.
-> "He is obviously slow if he thought no one was going to troll him."
2. If you lack respect towards someone, it is ok for you to treat them unfairly.
-> "He has posted some of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen on this forum. If it were someone that deserved respect I wouldn't have taken it."
I'm unable to see how my world view and behaviour in general would improve by adopting those as facts. They're only useful for justifying violations, and I'd rather do the opposite of that.
The issue with 1 is that it basically throws morals out of the window. You're allowed to do absolutely anything if the victim is unable to stop you.
The issue with 2 is that it's clearly against human rights in general. If you happened to lose respect towards me by something I said, like if I said I voted for Bush or something, it would mean that I've now lost my right to be treated fairly. In your eyes, I'd deserve all the crap that's thrown at me no matter the situation.