Context.

Me, me, me....

The guy hit the girl.

She stole from him.

The dog bit the boy.

He wrote a self-indulgent blog post.

All phrases, very true, very real, and whatever follows, deserves to happen. However, what if instead of just the punchline of the story is presented, we hear a little more about the beginning? What if instead we take into context the entirety of the situation prior to making any judgements on jumping to the end?

For the first phrase, let us look at the entire dynamics of the relationship of the guy and girl. Do they argue a lot, are they in a relationship, do they know each other at all, what were they doing for this thing to happen? Looking not just in what the man did because that one seems to have presented itself already, but in what she did too. After all, though abuse happens both ways, there is typically some situation, some underlying thing that needs to be understood to get the entire picture.

"Are you justifying abuse?" An emotionally-driven response. Yet, if able to see past, one can see that I am further from justifying anything, rather trying to understand.

What if this guy were to get a consequence for this act when the part of her hitting him first, or threatening his life with a weapon, or she threatened his children, or it was truly an accident, or she simply claimed this happened when it didn't? Is it better to be swift than accurate? Is it better to hand out a ruling to one when both parties are guilty?

Let us look at the dog biting a boy. Was the boy where he shouldn't be? After all, if there are signs posted and a child wanders into a cage due to parents who for whatever reason didn't see it, who is really the guilty party? The dog is a beast, lacking intent, where as the child possibly young possibly not knowing any better, possibly the parents weren't distracted in a negative way, but instead got something in their eye, or maybe the cage was open due to wind? The possibilities are numerous, however without a context it is difficult to know what to do going forward. I mean, if people really want to implement change and not just hand out judgement, are we God?

The self-indulgent blog post part might have been true, however maybe I disguised it as a way for your benefit. Maybe I wrote about me because that is all my egocentrically-minded self can think about. Not always positive, but negative too, for it is all about me. I mean, you also wouldn't know that I might view the world as a competitive place where I feel inadequate and therefore struggle to keep up. You also wouldn't know that being egocentric is not narcissistic, and that I am merely trying to survive, giving examples the best way I know how, from my perspective. I mean, you wouldn't take any of that into consideration would you, considering you discounted me, my words, my thought, as "self-indulgent."

Good for you if all you are about are the facts, for there is too much convoluted information in the news today and that people don't know what to believe. Is all I want to know is, "what happened?" Yes, awesome. Well, except for the fact that different people have different perspective as to what actually happened. No matter what, there are motives whether it is political, economical, or simply keeping things in line with an agenda you might be more comfortable with.

I don't know. Maybe walking into the room as the final sentence is stated is like buying a car after someone has driven it 120,000 miles, you aren't exactly getting the best parts of it.

Oh well, for more context in my back ground, to add a little more reassurance and validation to your own life, as well as entertain, my book (it's all about me remember) Castle-Broken, available on Amazon, Click HERE. 


God Bless.