Question: Do two wrongs make a right?

[Arctic Dave]

When I was a kid and my brother and I would get into a big dust up and stuff sometimes would get broken and my mom would give both of us a whoppin. Was this right if my brother started it?

Let me know. I think I will call her with the results.

[notesdev]

1. Yes she was right

Kids are experts at pushing the line. Had she a policy of punishing only the one who started it, the next obvious step for the kids is to goad each other into starting something, or simply starting something and blaming the other one for starting it.

By punishing both, she makes it not only less likely that either will risk starting a fight, but also makes it less likely that either would try to goad the other into a fight.

Sucks if you get punished without having done something wrong, but it probably did you good in the long run. As a result of her actions, are you more or less likely to get into trouble?

[Arctic Dave]

3. So two wrongs do make a right?

I not sure if we pushed any lines other than we would knock the stuffing out of each other for any number of reasons.

At what point up the food chain can we take "two wrongs make a right"?

[notesdev]

9. I'm saying that she may not have been wrong

If you look at it in the big picture, it ultimately wounded nothing more than your pride and did positive things for your character.

[MedicalAdmin]

57. Nope - you're mom was right.

In your hypothetical you brother was the breaker of the the stuff and the instigator of the fight. You were an accessory. Just because your brother wanted to start some shit doesn't mean that you had to follow suit. You chose to fight and your actions lead to destruction of property.

Both crimes are punishable. But if you want to call up your mother for a dope slap, feel free.

[alphafemale]

10. Exactly. Kids can have a very low threshold of "he/she started it"

To paraphrase Bill Cosby. His pajamas were touching my pajamas.

Yes. If it gets out of hand to the point of tussle you ABSOLUTELY punish both kids.

Because there is almost NO WAY as a parent to clearly define who started it.

In this way they are going to not be as easily goaded into continuing what someone else started. And you are not going to be perceived as favoring "the baby" or "the girl." And you're also not going to be persuaded by the "best liar."

My kids learned to settle even verbal conflicts between themselves fairly young. Because even when they brought those to me I was radically and imaginatively unfair to both parties. :evilgrin:

[sorcrow]

2. No

No, but three lefts make a right.

Crow

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Your family sounds really violent

No whoppin and breaking shit at my house. I'll take wild leap here and point out that your story has three people, all wrong.

[seabeyond]

5. you are interpreting wrongs. i guess one would have to first ask if there really are two wrongs

before any declarations of two wrongs = right

[yawnmaster]

6. Your mom was right. She did good. but your premise is wrong...

There was only one wrong and its one of the the kids, perhaps both (so maybe two wrongs - but they are both the kids).
One kid got a lesson for doing wrong. The other got a lesson of life - actually a number of lessons...
such as...
life isn't always fair.
avoid certain confrontations (ie wrong place wrong time)
reduce the probability of circumstantial interpretation.

[Arctic Dave]

8. So if you find yourself in the wrong place, wrong time you should go all out?

You will be punished for it anyway? Should people be punished for defending themselves?

[yawnmaster]

15. If you have that ache to go all out, it will happen eventually. Perhaps you are in the...

wrong place at the wrong time because you want to put yourself in a place where you have an excuse to go all out.
In which case, you are definitely due some blame.
But how you made that leap from my statement I can't say.

Sometimes you are punished for something you didn't do, because of circumstance.
Avoid the circumstance when you can.
That is life in a society.

Also, you must look at things from different frames of context.
To you, I'm sure you thought yourself in the right many times when going at it with your brother - I can see this from your writings here. Yet I suspect this may not always be the case from other frames of reference.
Your Mom was right in punishing both (and for other reasons, too).
Unless you accept the risk, avoid situations that can lead to these circumstances.
Don't escalate the situation once it starts.

[Arctic Dave]

19. So turn the other cheek and also take the punishment?

Double punishment?

[Solomon]

25. LOL This thread ain't going no where near where you wanted it

to. :rofl:

Thanks for the laugh.

[Arctic Dave]

28. Actually, it has been very informative.

I have learned that, two wrongs do make it right and punishment is OK as long as it an authorative figure dishing it out and not the person being harmed.

Inerseting indeed.

[uppityperson]

38. I don't see anyone saying that. Interesting how you do.

[yawnmaster]

41. LOL you didn't learn that from here. That is what you had in your mind to begin with. eom

[Arctic Dave]

48. Were did I see it, let me explain.

First, I was hit. I, and many others would say that is a wrong.
Second, I responded with violence. Some people say that was a wrong.
Third, I was punished for defendending myself, some people would consider that a wrong too.

Note:
This story is pretty much made up, I wanted to see why some people make their choices when violence is concerned and how they justify their responses.

To tell you the truth i thought i would get a solid, NO, two wrongs don't make right.
I used a jumbled up story to see how people would interprete it and see how the would respond.

How did you see it?

[uppityperson]

49. Wrong. You were punished for being aggressive back, not for defending yourself.

And WHERE do you get "2 wrongs make a right" from our replies?

[TexasProgresive]

7. My mother-in-law had eight children 5 sons and 3 daughters

If they got into a fight all involved were punished-"It takes 2 to fight!" was her thinking. In any case she didn't have time to sort it out. You know that both you and your brother probably blamed the other for starting the fight.

[Arctic Dave]

11. So if my accused me of taking money and started hitting me that is for me to be punished?

Would I be justified in later retaliation? I was hit twice, should I be angry and seek revenge?

[notesdev]

14. It's a prisoners' dilemma

The logical solution in terms of pain avoidance for the both of you is to stop fighting, which is exactly the incentive a responsible parent should be setting up.

[yawnmaster]

16. no you would not be justified. You can be angry. And learn to deal with anger.

Learning to deal with anger is one major life lesson.

[Arctic Dave]

20. So by not learning to deal with anger and lashing out is a flaw of character.

Would this assessment be a good lesson for groups?

[yawnmaster]

45. Yes, I would argue that not learning to deal with anger, in a society, can be ...

a serious problem; some might call it a character flaw, but "character flaw" is too undefined and implies that it can't be fixed and I'm not sure that is true in every case.
"lashing out" depends on the definition. If you mean reacting to anger then it can be proper or improper, depending on the circumstance.

With regard to groups...
you can't teach a group, you can only teach individuals.
A group doesn't learn how to deal with anger, only its individual members.

[Arctic Dave]

22. So not learning to deal with anger and lashing out is a flaw of character

Would this assessment be just limited to persons or do you think it also applies to groups?

[Marr]

12. No, but two lefts do.

Actually, I guess it would be three lefts.

[unkachuck]

13. you guys....

....were unfortunately wrong....whoever started the fight was wrong for starting the fight and whoever responded was wrong for responding instead of bringing the matter to your mother for resolution....

....regarding matters of sibling conflict, parents love snitches and doling out punishment; they're less enthused with kids displaying self-determination or initiative, usurping their role as parent....

[Arctic Dave]

23. Should this type of conflict resolution also go for groups too?

At what point should it matter or not matter?

[uppityperson]

40. Yes, groups of children can also use this type of resolution. eom

[Incitatus]

17. Another Bin Laden thread?

[Arctic Dave]

26. In a way, yes. Trying to see why some people think the way they do.

I have found this to be pretty interesting so far.

What is your take on the dust up?

[uppityperson]

42. There is a difference between children and adults, between siblings and groups at war.

Trying to compare killing Osama to being like 2 arguing siblings is rather simplistic

[yawnmaster]

55. The thing about seeing how other people think is that you need to try and remove from your own mind

your preconceived notions and prejudices.
This is taught very early in any sociology course.

Of course we can't ignore all of our prior ideas and prejudices, but your aren't even trying.
Which suggests to me that seeing why other people think the way they do is not your real purpose here.

[Arctic Dave]

69. This was never going to be scientific study.

Don't think it would possible, much like a poll on here.

[coalition_unwilling]

62. OBL did wrong by allegedly masterminding the deaths of 3,000 people.

The U.S may have theoretically committed a second wrong by executing OBL extra-judicially.

So now it's right.

See, two wrongs do make a right.

:sarcasm: but seriously, this is one of the major premises (or would that be syllogisms) for those defending OBL's execution without trial. Not the only justification, mind you, but definitely one of the principal ones.

[uppityperson]

18. The 1 who started it was wrong, the 1 who responded back was wrong. A bigger question for you...

Your mom was unfortunately violent which I also see as wrong. She was right in punishing both of you though.

Did you learn to walk away from provocation or are you still getting into fights with the excuse "he started it"?

[seabeyond]

21. "still getting into fights with the excuse "he started it"?" this is what stuck out for me.

why we take from childhood and hold on tight to.

[Arctic Dave]

24. So if someone punches you, should you ignore it?

Should you turn the other cheek and walk away? Or should you defend yourself and believe that you should not get in trouble for it?

[uppityperson]

29. Yes, you should ignore it if you can. Walking away can be the best thing to do. It depends

on the situation. For 2 kids, if 1 punches the other, the other should walk away.

[Arctic Dave]

30. To were? What if that is not an option?

Should this just apply to fighting or should all things unpleasant be accepted?

[uppityperson]

37. Part of defending yourself is walking away. Sorry that your childhood is upsetting you still

If you are a child and your brother punches you, walk out of the room. Go to the living room and sit by your mom or dad. Or run to the bathroom, shut and lock the door. How difficult is that?

[seabeyond]

32. because as a parent we have learned, it generally takes two. he punched you.... why?

(not that the punching is ok, it is NOT)

my oldest is always bossing the youngest. naggin naggin naggin. sometimes my youngest has had enough, and hits him

he gets in trouble

my oldest gets in trouble too

leave your brother alone, quit telling him what to do, you are not the parent

that is probably why your mom addressed it as she did

[Arctic Dave]

34. So if I am attacked for any reason I should not defend myself?

If I was accussed of something, he did not believe me and hit me, I responded by defending myself. Should I be punished also?

[seabeyond]

50. my mom asked the three of us who did something... cant remember of course. we were pretty sure

it was my middle brother who did whatever. we had to sit there for a period and if someone did not own up to it, we all got the belt. in my day, my parents used a belt.

no one owned up to it.

we all got swats on the ass

fair?

meh... who knows. my parents worked hard at being good parents. certainly werent perfect but then nor were any of us kids. i didnt take it to heart and understood where mom was coming from.

often times, when the kids are fighting i really dont give a shit how it started, .... simple, stop. no more or else. just stop

[uppityperson]

51. If you, as a child, were attacked for a reason, should you respond violently?

[Arctic Dave]

68. Define attacked. Nt

[uppityperson]

70. no. eom

[Arctic Dave]

71. Ok. Thank you for your time.

It was apleasure having the conversation with you. ;)

[MedicalAdmin]

59. Yes - depending on "how" you defended yourself.

Did you just start wailin and whoopin, or did you stop the fight or try to disengage... If you chose to dust it up, then yes, you chose the action and you chose the consequences.

[LanternWaste]

33. Or possibly our actions could be predicated on our own judgements...

"So if someone punches you, should you ignore it?"

Or possibly our actions could be predicated on our own judgements rather than simply on the actions and affairs of others... :shrug:

[Arctic Dave]

36. I felt threatened, should I not defend myself?

Seems like a logical response.

[yawnmaster]

54. Its A response, not the only response or even the most logical. eom

[LanternWaste]

56. I imagine that should we think about it, we'd find many logical responses

I imagine that should we think about it, we'd find many logical responses-- not merely one. And then we may rate each of the those logical responses vis-a-vis consequence, ethics, practicality, etc. (much as we do most of our decisions throughout the day I would hope).

However, I do understand that there are many people who see one response, accept it, and stop looking for additional responses. I believe that is called 'dogma'.

[MedicalAdmin]

60. Felt is not = to logic.

You use logic the way a crackhead uses drugs.

[Arctic Dave]

63. I take it you have never been in a fight.

If you have, why did you fight back? Did you let the perpetrator beat you until they were tired and left?

[MedicalAdmin]

65. I have been in riots.

I was working in a maximum security prison at the time and it was a very dangerous place. And fights were a fact of life. The staff and the prisoners semi-laughingly called the place a gladiator academy. So yes, I've been in fights.

And I can tell you that I would defend myself. But the first line of defence is both situational awareness and your voice. If you have to engage physicially, then that is a failure. The best outcome is to control an out of control violent prisoner with your voice or positioning.

The idea is to use the force continuum and only respond with the same or one level up of force that your are presented with and to ratchet things down as soon as possible. The idea is neither to be a punching bag nor to be the aggressor.


I hope that helps to clarify and I am sorry for the snarky tone of my last post.

[Arctic Dave]

67. Felt = input. Fighting = output.

If being hit you have choices based on your experience. Logical choices.

[MedicalAdmin]

72. Sun Tzu said...

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."


Yes - I agree that you have choices as does your opponent. The key to victory is to not have to fight. If that is your choice and you don't choose it, then you are not victorious.

[yawnmaster]

52. Walking away from a punch is not ignoring it. If the punch is so insignificant that it can...

be ignored, then yes, ignore it.
Why do you assume that there are only two ways to react, walk away or defend yourself?
1. avoid the situation before it happens. you don't need to see the future, only recognize situations that are risky.
2. turn the other cheek. yes. not walk away but allow the aggressor to strike again if they desire. If this passiveness stops the actions because the aggressor gets second thoughts or sees peace in your actions, then this is very viable.
3. walk (or run) away. Often the best approach, unless your personality requires that you carry a chip on your shoulder. By the way, this option allows you to practice option number one, above, the next time the situation occurs.
4. take away the stick. That is to neutralize the aggression. Talk it out (or physically take the stick away). Reduce the physical as much as possible.
5. defend yourself with aggression. Use enough to neutralize the situation. Deal with the consequences (which may be third party punishment).

Of course if one has anger management problems, requires revenge, needs that chip on a shoulder, then number 5 is often the only option taken.

There are more.

[MedicalAdmin]

58. Rule one in martial arts.

Walk away from the fight if you can. The best fight is the one that never starts. A master can defuse a situation just with their presence.

[lunatica]

27. Your mother will trump whatever you say

You can't win.

[MrScorpio]

31. Not always. It's complicated.

However, I'm very certain that three rights make a left.

[Arctic Dave]

43. Thank you MrS

One of the most insightful post so far.

[Ikonoklast]

35. Simple, don't break your Mom's stuff.

You must have been a rotten little kid.

[sufrommich]

39. Why would your Mom care what a bunch of strangers on the

internet think?

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. No, but self defense isn't "a wrong". n/t

[Shagbark Hickory]

46. You mean she hit you? Where I come from, that's called child abuse and not only is it wrong...

it's illegal.

[LoZoccolo]

47. Two "wrongs" can prevent additional "wrongs".

It's been shown through game-theory experiments that tit-for-tat is an effective strategy for developing cooperation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

[RegieRocker]

53. I was going to post something similar. Thanks!

[Motown_Johnny]

61. No, but two rights make a U turn

[drpepper67]

64. I raised twins

And like you're mom, I wasn't interested in who started what or when. They both were punished.

Why?

They eventually learned not to start anything with each other knowing that they would both be punished.

If your mom only punished your brother because you said "He started it" eventually you would start stuff with your bother, and blame him, just to get him in trouble. I've seen it happen with kids all the time.

So, would you still start anything, knowing you'd both get it?

Not unless you enjoyed punishment....

[Lucian]

66. I don't consider it wrong if you were defending yourself...

if he started it.