where the heart is
This is how I work.
This is how I tolerate.
Despite people telling me over and again already, I have always worked this way, and hence, the reason to why I reckon I don't hold grudges if ever someone were to offend me for far too long. It's easy for me to forget about it, sleep it off maybe, and forgive. Because I see where the heart is. To not just focus on the action, but the reason(s) behind the actions as well. A certain person might be rude and rough, odd and freaky, stupid and silly, or all the above on the surface. But deep down inside, it may be a different case altogether. Maybe that's why my dad thinks I'm too trusting. I appear to have more faith in people than what should be expected in the real world. I don't believe that people were meant to grow to be mean and evil at heart, despite the things that they may have been through to scar it.
Where the heart lies betrays the rational to their actions, their words, their way of thinking. And if you could read a person so clearly, it could all be stripped down to be 'fair enough', I think. Despite how screwed up some things may be, it usually all makes sense, as long as you can understand them.
This all, of course, sounds rather nice, doesn't it?
Well I believed it in until recently that is.
I don't know really what sparked the thought. But I think some things just can't be excused.
It's not necessarily all about the intentions. Someone can so mess things up, despite having the best intentions to it. Can that be forgiven? Yes. But it doesn't change the effect the action would have created on circumstances and situations. In a (very) extreme example, for instance, say an occult leader leads an entire congregation of his followers to commit suicide. I'm sure not many would actually reckon that for some twisted reason, say 'Yea it's understandable. I can see how this could've happened'. I mean, think about it. The cult leader may have really believed in his cause and lead others to believe in it as well. Does that make it excusable? Just because he 'had a cause'?
No.
But this is how the world works. This is how conflict arises.
Despite us trying to understand the opposition's party more in order to 'reach an understanding', some things just cannot be compromised and discounted. Just because something can be argued and reasoned to be convincingly fair, it doesn't necessarily make it alright.
Is this extreme? Is this cynical?
I'm not sure.
Just sorting my brain out a little.

















