In stunning reversal, it has been decided that two wrongs do, in fact, make a right.
Following recent incidents in which verbal conflict have resulted in calls for violence, experts have reviewed and overturned the old adage, “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Scandals arising from name calling and racially-charged confrontation in the public square have demonstrated such vile, evil, that threats of violence have been made to harm, bomb, shoot, kill or other wise injure people who have engaged in seemingly petty squabbles, or who have voiced opinions contrary to the mainstream on issues such as abortion, privilege, role of government, and border security.
While it was previously thought that verbal discourse among those with conflicting opinions was civilized, it has now been determined that if a view held by one individual or group is considered by others to be wrong, the appropriate response is a second wrong, such as threat of, or actual, physical violence.
Mother Linda Cooper, 69, recalls, “When my son Timmy was about six, he once hit a playmate he said deserved it because he had called him a nasty name. No serious injury resulted, but the other child did shed a few tears and I admonished Timmy, ’two wrongs don’t make a right.’”
Similar chastisements have been uttered by countess parents, particularly mothers, over eons, until evidence to disprove this widely-accepted philosophy emerged. New breakthroughs in philosophy and mathematics led to the recent discovery that two wrongs, do, in fact make a right.
California University professor Dwayne Fouta summed it up like this, “Although the mathematical proof behind this is quite complex, it’s similar to how a negative number multiplied by a negative number results in a positive number.” As a practical example, the professor explained, “Let’s say an ignorant adolescent makes a racial slur against a minority – the first wrong. Rather than responding with words to educate the perpetrator, the victim should do this person bodily harm – the second wrong, preferably resulting in death. In this way, the evil of the racist is removed from the world resulting in the arbitrary ‘right’ we are trying to achieve.”
Asked to clarify that the wrong words can justify murder, the professor explained that, “Murder is a subjective term, entirely dependent on the views and motives of the person committing it.”
Mrs. Cooper’s sentiment reflects this as she added, “I now see that violence is, in many cases, the appropriate response to the bad people that say anything I don’t agree with. I wish that I had been enlightened enough to teach this to my son at a young age. He’s grown up to spout out quotes from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. that just don’t make sense in the current environment.” She continued, “Some words are so evil that the only appropriate response is violence. For example someone with unpopular views on things such as race relations or abortion will only learn if they are seriously maimed or killed. Now obviously if they are killed they won’t have any opportunity to to act on their newfound knowledge of right and wrong but that doesn’t matter because at least the rest of us don’t have to listen to their silly, antiquated opinions.”
Despite her acknowledgment that violence is the appropriate response to verbal “assault,” when asked about her opinion of second amendment rights, Mrs. Cooper strangely professed that no-one other than government officials needs a gun in the United States in 2018. As Mrs. Cooper points out, words and even facial expressions can be very dangerous and must be responded to with greater force so that they can never be used again to harm the populace. Despite the new, mathematical proof, philosophers and ethicists remain stumped as to how their previously being “wrong” that “two wrongs don’t make a right” implies that it will be necessary for them to be wrong again in order to ultimately be right.
Professor Fouta elaborated, “The previous error was in summing wrongs rather than multiplying them.”