Why do you think its wrong to retaliate anger with anger if peaceful actions do not have an effect?

Well, lets try to picture it like this: If I tried to turn off a fire by using water but at that moment it hadn't worked, would it solve it if I just made another fire and see if it would have a positive effect? Personally, I don't think so. So if anger was fire anger against anger wouldn't sound like a wise idea....maybe I'm wrong. But I found that it is best to try to be assertive about things and express emotions in a way that is effective to everyone involve such as communicating in "I" statements and avoid tossing the blame. For some, it is best to talk right when the problem happened and the emotions are present while for others it is best to let them cool off.

Sometimes anger cab get the better of you but no matter what never go down that road it will be hard but it will be better

Because sometimes people dont necessarily respond with a calm and peaceful attitude. Dometimes tne only way they understand it is through shouting

The old saying of two wrongs don't make a right comes to mind. If you've tried peaceful actions and nothing has come from them, move away from the situation. Your physical and mental health are more important than any situation you may be facing.

Anger follows yo, just as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the cart. Love and understanding, follows you, like a shadow that never leaves. -BUDDA-

Because one person is already angry and must have done already a lot of damage either physocally or emotionally to people...now retaliating to this would be like causing more pain to people..so if peacefulness doesnot work it will be best to get yourself out of thag place so that you dont create a seen..and you work of calming down the situation is also done...

It would be wrong to retaliate anger with anger because it just adds fuel to the fire. Each party will probably not listen to the other because there is no active listening happening. Just two parties trying to get their point across without addressing the real issue.

As they say, when you fight fire with fire it just gets bigger. Even if peaceful actions don't work, they're still better than anger

Is better to be peaceful because the anger will be gone, will not stay forever. Is important to remember that the inteligent people are forgiving.

cause retaliating anger with anger will only make the situation worse. but when one side of the arguement keeps calm and is able to control their nerves, this way he/she could think more rationally and try to ease the situation a little bit with out saying mean and non-meant stuff that are said due to irrational thinking and the taking over anger.

It is not wrong to retaliate anger with anger if peaceful actions do not have an effect because that is normal, completely. Things take time, especially waiting for peaceful actions to "weigh in."

Retaliating with anger can make the situation worse and not only hurt you but the others who are involved.

"holding on to anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die." often becoming angry hurts you more than the other person, and worsens an already bad situation. If peaceful actions have had no effect, maybe both parties need some distance.

Anger to anger isn't very good between two. In state of anger people usually don't understand what they are doing they might be stressing on one point rather than analysing their mistakes and trying to solve it. Usually one should always be calm and understanding if another is anger you being calm in situation instead of arguing this will lead another person to calm down slowly. The way you speak will make him calm. It's better to stay calm and confront the person instead of arguing with him. Later once he is calm down you can talk to him and make him understand. He will definitely listen and understand his/her mistakes.