But both of these words are used so often to mean the other that both have lost their original meaning.
Which is why I always find myself (and you people too experience this) in a situation where for example I am capable of not being angry at someone, but demanding they pay for what they did and being accused of defending said person.
Example:
A thief steals food because he is starving, or stole money to buy food. I get the motive, I get the reasoning, I recognize that it was less his character that produced this decison and more it was the circumstance that bend him to breed this action. It shows that in a similar situation he might break, that gives information how much I can trust that person, but it does not mean its a default state for him to steal. So, I can come to a conclusion its ok to be pals but be prepared and on the lookaut if his life changes. Its a matter of quality under a codition then a matter of established and unchangeble nature.
But I'm not against him, but against what he did (most automatically assume you are the sum of your deeds [you and what you're doing is the same]), in this case, he stole, so, just like you get to own a milion dollars you won in a lottery, you get to own the sentence for stealing.
But subhumanity that is the majority of people can't use their reasoning, and since they do it (I don't) they take their feelings they have when they understand this thief, they use the compassion (or rather they are swayed by it) to decrease the sentence below what is expected to be given.
What do you call a person who speaks for decreasing the sentence? A defender.
But I don't do that. I don't advocate for that. The rest do, and they would do it if they listened to me in the first part. So they project. Because even if they did and would hear me still asking for this thief to get the 100% of his deserved punishment, they would feel there's inequity being made. I'd still be the bad guy.
To understand is not to agree. This is the most hurtful mix of meaning the same but made to signal a different concept words I've seen.
Which is why I always find myself (and you people too experience this) in a situation where for example I am capable of not being angry at someone, but demanding they pay for what they did and being accused of defending said person.
Example:
A thief steals food because he is starving, or stole money to buy food. I get the motive, I get the reasoning, I recognize that it was less his character that produced this decison and more it was the circumstance that bend him to breed this action. It shows that in a similar situation he might break, that gives information how much I can trust that person, but it does not mean its a default state for him to steal. So, I can come to a conclusion its ok to be pals but be prepared and on the lookaut if his life changes. Its a matter of quality under a codition then a matter of established and unchangeble nature.
But I'm not against him, but against what he did (most automatically assume you are the sum of your deeds [you and what you're doing is the same]), in this case, he stole, so, just like you get to own a milion dollars you won in a lottery, you get to own the sentence for stealing.
But subhumanity that is the majority of people can't use their reasoning, and since they do it (I don't) they take their feelings they have when they understand this thief, they use the compassion (or rather they are swayed by it) to decrease the sentence below what is expected to be given.
What do you call a person who speaks for decreasing the sentence? A defender.
But I don't do that. I don't advocate for that. The rest do, and they would do it if they listened to me in the first part. So they project. Because even if they did and would hear me still asking for this thief to get the 100% of his deserved punishment, they would feel there's inequity being made. I'd still be the bad guy.
To understand is not to agree. This is the most hurtful mix of meaning the same but made to signal a different concept words I've seen.
