• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Two wrongs don't make a right???

T

TheParser

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2018
Messages
15,616
Reaction score
8,014
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I respectfully disagree with this time-honored saying.

If A unjustly wrongs B, then I feel B has the right to unjustly wrong A.

For example, if a gangbanger covers your house with graffiti, you should have the right to cover his house with graffiti.

"An eye for an eye," in my opinion, is the best basis for the law. It's the only thing that human beings fear.
 
TheParser said:
I respectfully disagree with this time-honored saying.

If A unjustly wrongs B, then I feel B has the right to unjustly wrong A.

For example, if a gangbanger covers your house with graffiti, you should have the right to cover his house with graffiti.

"An eye for an eye," in my opinion, is the best basis for the law. It's the only thing that human beings fear.
Click to expand...

An eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth would lead to a world of the blind and toothless. - Various Sources
 
TheParser said:
I respectfully disagree with this time-honored saying.

If A unjustly wrongs B, then I feel B has the right to unjustly wrong A.

For example, if a gangbanger covers your house with graffiti, you should have the right to cover his house with graffiti.

"An eye for an eye," in my opinion, is the best basis for the law. It's the only thing that human beings fear.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? One case of vandalism is wrong yet two cases of vandalism make it right is simply silly.
 
TheParser said:
I respectfully disagree with this time-honored saying.

If A unjustly wrongs B, then I feel B has the right to unjustly wrong A.

For example, if a gangbanger covers your house with graffiti, you should have the right to cover his house with graffiti.

"An eye for an eye," in my opinion, is the best basis for the law. It's the only thing that human beings fear.
Click to expand...

Great defense in court, "Well he did it to me!" :lol:
 
TheParser said:
I respectfully disagree with this time-honored saying.

If A unjustly wrongs B, then I feel B has the right to unjustly wrong A.

For example, if a gangbanger covers your house with graffiti, you should have the right to cover his house with graffiti.

"An eye for an eye," in my opinion, is the best basis for the law. It's the only thing that human beings fear.
Click to expand...

That is no right, nor is it right or even close to justice. That is merely revenge.

Revenge may feel like balance to the initial victim, but society requires a higher standard of justice, with jurisprudence and innocence until proven guilty before punishment.
 
Two wrongs don't make a right but three lefts do.
 
TheParser said:
I respectfully disagree with this time-honored saying.

If A unjustly wrongs B, then I feel B has the right to unjustly wrong A.

For example, if a gangbanger covers your house with graffiti, you should have the right to cover his house with graffiti.

"An eye for an eye," in my opinion, is the best basis for the law. It's the only thing that human beings fear.
Click to expand...

An eye for an eye just leads to everyone being blind.
 
Do you mean that the victim should able to take their proportionate vengeance following due process in a court of law, or should they be free to simply mete out justice to whomever they deem responsible?

Our society may believe in putting rabid dogs down, but even we don't ****ing bite them.
 
TheParser said:
I respectfully disagree with this time-honored saying.

If A unjustly wrongs B, then I feel B has the right to unjustly wrong A.

For example, if a gangbanger covers your house with graffiti, you should have the right to cover his house with graffiti.

"An eye for an eye," in my opinion, is the best basis for the law. It's the only thing that human beings fear.
Click to expand...

I would prefer using my home insurance, and then let my insurance provider recoup the loss from through the the legal system.

Going loggerheads might give a person a little instant gratification, but also makes them a criminal as well.
 
I am disappointed by the Pope's decision to come out against capital punishment.

If there is no doubt as to a murderer's guilt, then I feel that the victim's family has the right to personally conduct the execution.
 
TheParser said:
I respectfully disagree with this time-honored saying.

If A unjustly wrongs B, then I feel B has the right to unjustly wrong A.

For example, if a gangbanger covers your house with graffiti, you should have the right to cover his house with graffiti.

"An eye for an eye," in my opinion, is the best basis for the law. It's the only thing that human beings fear.
Click to expand...

True...that is known as the Perfect Law...only God has that right...
 
Elvira said:
True...that is known as the Perfect Law...only God has that right...
Click to expand...


The unspeakable suffering of personkind throughout the ages is proof, in my opinion, that God does not exist, or if S/He does, then S/He does not care about us.
 
Of course minor offenses are best left to the authorities. but I simply dont believe in the "eye for an eye" philosophy. Anyone that is so despicable that they would feel justified in taking an eye will not be stopped by simply taking an eye in return. The correct response is the law of massive retaliation. I'm going to take an eye, an ear, both hands, and a foot. Maybe a knee and a foot. On different legs.
 
VanceMack said:
Of course minor offenses are best left to the authorities. but I simply dont believe in the "eye for an eye" philosophy. Anyone that is so despicable that they would feel justified in taking an eye will not be stopped by simply taking an eye in return. The correct response is the law of massive retaliation. I'm going to take an eye, an ear, both hands, and a foot. Maybe a knee and a foot. On different legs.
Click to expand...

I know you are probably being slightly hyperbolic here but your post points out just how unjust man can be...
 
Elvira said:
I know you are probably being slightly hyperbolic here but your post points out just how unjust man can be...
Click to expand...
There is an expectation that society is just. Man is not just. My comment was not meant as a means of exacting justice. My comment was meant as a means of ending in the extreme acts of violent aggression.
 
VanceMack said:
There is an expectation that society is just. Man is not just. My comment was not meant as a means of exacting justice. My comment was meant as a means of ending in the extreme acts of violent aggression.
Click to expand...

Which is unjust...:2razz:
 
TheParser said:
I respectfully disagree with this time-honored saying.

If A unjustly wrongs B, then I feel B has the right to unjustly wrong A.

For example, if a gangbanger covers your house with graffiti, you should have the right to cover his house with graffiti.

"An eye for an eye," in my opinion, is the best basis for the law. It's the only thing that human beings fear.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in this specific situation. But since we are in a political forum, it's important to expose a standard political/propaganda strategy that, although used by both parties, has become standard propaganda procedure for many progressives. That's because the "two wrongs make a right" assertion, has been normalized and even encouraged by the progressive elites & news media.


During the increasingly rare incidents, where a person points out corruption, failed policies or incompetence on the part of democrats, it's very common that the progressive pundit(or anchor) will use the "two wrongs make a right" tactic, in order to justify, minimize or excuse the corruption. They will often say something like, "well John Doe Republican did something similar back in 1993". Or, "well, republicans have supported bad policies too".

There are 2 big problems with ^that. First, the two wrongs make a right strategy, is only used to protect democrats. These people WILL NOT use it the other way around! But more importantly, it's completely irresponsible, reckless and dangerous to justify govt corruption by pointing to past corruption!

Where does it stop? But if this nonsensical thought process is legitimized, then politicians will remain corrupt, as long as someone can point to someone on the 'other side', and say "well they did it too"!
 
VanceMack said:
No...what you mean is that it isnt 'fair'...
Click to expand...

jus·tice
ˈjəstəs/Submit
noun
1.
just behavior or treatment.
"a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people"
synonyms: fairness, justness, fair play, fair-mindedness, equity, evenhandedness, impartiality, objectivity, neutrality, disinterestedness, honesty, righteousness, morals, morality
"I appealed to his sense of justice"
2.
a judge or magistrate, in particular a judge of the supreme court of a country or state.
synonyms: judge, magistrate, jurist
"an order made by the justices"

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1.....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.167....0.KNo6tRhLwDY
 
TheParser said:
I respectfully disagree with this time-honored saying.

If A unjustly wrongs B, then I feel B has the right to unjustly wrong A.

For example, if a gangbanger covers your house with graffiti, you should have the right to cover his house with graffiti.

"An eye for an eye," in my opinion, is the best basis for the law. It's the only thing that human beings fear.
Click to expand...

But three lefts do!
 
Elvira said:
jus·tice
ˈjəstəs/Submit
noun
1.
just behavior or treatment.
"a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people"
synonyms: fairness, justness, fair play, fair-mindedness, equity, evenhandedness, impartiality, objectivity, neutrality, disinterestedness, honesty, righteousness, morals, morality
"I appealed to his sense of justice"
2.
a judge or magistrate, in particular a judge of the supreme court of a country or state.
synonyms: judge, magistrate, jurist
"an order made by the justices"

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1.....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.167....0.KNo6tRhLwDY
Click to expand...
The thing you may be missing is that there is no 'fair'. 'Fair' is a myth. It is an idea. It is not reality.
 
VanceMack said:
The thing you may be missing is that there is no 'fair'. 'Fair' is a myth. It is an idea. It is not reality.
Click to expand...

The thing you may be missing is that was my point in my 1st post and subsequent posts...only God has that right because only He can exercise perfect justice...
 
Elvira said:
The thing you may be missing is that was my point in my 1st post and subsequent posts...only God has that right because only He can exercise perfect justice...
Click to expand...
OK then....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom