Yes literally always? Doing something wrong because someone does something wrong doesn’t make your wrong action morally right. They don’t cancel into a positive.
We can understand why people do wrong things, been be sympathetic, but it doesn’t make the action good.
All words are made up. That is a true statement, not ‘a wrong’ thing to say.
Just because it wasn’t polite doesn’t mean it’s wrong. You’re putting morals on how to correct people on a subject you don’t fully understand yourself.
Oh please are you seriously pretending that was meant to be informative? It was 100% snark and meant to be retaliatory. Don’t play dumb to score magic internet points. You’re not dumb. I know you aren’t.
There are cases where it does hold. Trivially, if the wrongs are vastly out of proportion, someone is overreacting. For example, if you’re fixated on your phone, don’t look where you’re going and bump into me, that’s a mild wrong. If I respond by slapping the phone out of your hands and stomping on it, I’ve caused way more damage to you in retaliation.
But in the case at hand, I’m with you: An obnoxious statement designed to invalidate someone’s complaint countered by another obnoxious statement designed to invalidate the previous one, thus defending the original complaint, is perfectly acceptable. The point isn’t just obnoxion, but a counterargument.
An obnoxious response to an obnoxious statement
Did we not learn “two wrongs don’t make a right” in kindergarten or something?
Did it ever hold true?
Yes literally always? Doing something wrong because someone does something wrong doesn’t make your wrong action morally right. They don’t cancel into a positive.
We can understand why people do wrong things, been be sympathetic, but it doesn’t make the action good.
All words are made up. That is a true statement, not ‘a wrong’ thing to say.
Just because it wasn’t polite doesn’t mean it’s wrong. You’re putting morals on how to correct people on a subject you don’t fully understand yourself.
Oh please are you seriously pretending that was meant to be informative? It was 100% snark and meant to be retaliatory. Don’t play dumb to score magic internet points. You’re not dumb. I know you aren’t.
Interesting how your upset at the true statement said sarcastically, not the misinformed, incorrect statement said sarcastically.
There’s a double standard you’re still holding on to here, and it isn’t about magic Internet points.
So I guess you are.
This is boring. You are boring. Feel free to have the last word, I’m sure it’s very important to you.
There are cases where it does hold. Trivially, if the wrongs are vastly out of proportion, someone is overreacting. For example, if you’re fixated on your phone, don’t look where you’re going and bump into me, that’s a mild wrong. If I respond by slapping the phone out of your hands and stomping on it, I’ve caused way more damage to you in retaliation.
But in the case at hand, I’m with you: An obnoxious statement designed to invalidate someone’s complaint countered by another obnoxious statement designed to invalidate the previous one, thus defending the original complaint, is perfectly acceptable. The point isn’t just obnoxion, but a counterargument.