Anti's are not all the same

So I would change the following statement of mine:
"I don't think Anti's will waste their time on cracking your cyberidentity if you are not what they might call "an especially creepy paed"."

to:

"I don't think >most< Anti's will waste their time on cracking your cyberidentity if you are not what they might call "an especially creepy paed"."

And I think the following statement of yours:
"but don't presume they have any scruples, because they have repeatedly demonstrated that they do not."

should be changed to:

"but don't presume >the majority of them< have any scruples, because they have repeatedly demonstrated that >most of them< do not."

You say Anti's are Bullies. But I say Anti's are people. Some are Bullies for sure. But there is no way ALL Anti's are bullies.

I guess we need to define the word "Anti". Maybe that is our impass. As for me, I think there can be a sort of Anti (not necessary Anti-Paed, but Anti something or someone) in every human being on the planet at different times throughout our lives.

Maybe we could define the word to mean: someone who frequently or occasionally experiences strong feelings of hatred for something and attacks it whenever he/she is bored or miserable. But I don't think all "Anti's" have no scruples. I think many likely do. But as for them attacking when bored or miserable; What do they say, after all: "Misery loves company." Right? But is it impossible to have and exercise scruples when one is miserable? I think yes for some but not for all.