Let me plant out this scenario for those who fail to see the bigger picture...
There are four communities, A, B, C and D.
A leader from community A has been appointed to take care of all A, B, C and D.
There is enmity towards A and C community because C did not win at being in charge of A, B, C and D.
A problem occurs, and most of community A are hurt.
Community A decides to blame community C without evidence... however all four communities were harmed in the attack.
In the end, there is no further action taken to prevent further attacks from occurring against each other to protect all communities A, B, C and D.
However, having told all other communities that the likelihood that community C is to blame for the attack seems to be enough for community A though they are possibly innocent. They are celebrating and cheering on knowing that they have enmity community C... so power to community A.
Now everyone thinks of community C as the possible attackers, which manages to bring further enmity towards them.
In the end the possibility that the attack will happen again still remains, because there is a chance that either A, B, C and D did it. Since there is no evidence that C did it.
In the likelihood that community C did it and is arrested for the attack having being guilty. The fact that the attack happened in the first place and could happen again in the future should be addressed.
Meaning that, putting in C does not solve the problem. No further measures have been taken to ensure the safety for communities A, B and D in the likelihood that they could disagree. All that happened was community C was locked up.
In the assumption that C is innocent because A accused them, all other communities already judge C and enmity then builds up towards them even though community C is accused. On top of that, still all communities are not protected from further attacks.
In the end, everyone is left unprotected: no suggestions or solving of the problem at hand, nor prevention of communities from attacking each other further, no hand shakes made to resolve the community problems in terms of tension, no security has been appointed in any of the communities at large... and all communities continue to live with enmity towards each other then there's a divide.
In shot, the moral of the story is solve the problems at large because there's always a deeper/root problem. Fixing the surface problem doesn't solve anything.
There are four communities, A, B, C and D.
A leader from community A has been appointed to take care of all A, B, C and D.
There is enmity towards A and C community because C did not win at being in charge of A, B, C and D.
A problem occurs, and most of community A are hurt.
Community A decides to blame community C without evidence... however all four communities were harmed in the attack.
In the end, there is no further action taken to prevent further attacks from occurring against each other to protect all communities A, B, C and D.
However, having told all other communities that the likelihood that community C is to blame for the attack seems to be enough for community A though they are possibly innocent. They are celebrating and cheering on knowing that they have enmity community C... so power to community A.
Now everyone thinks of community C as the possible attackers, which manages to bring further enmity towards them.
In the end the possibility that the attack will happen again still remains, because there is a chance that either A, B, C and D did it. Since there is no evidence that C did it.
In the likelihood that community C did it and is arrested for the attack having being guilty. The fact that the attack happened in the first place and could happen again in the future should be addressed.
Meaning that, putting in C does not solve the problem. No further measures have been taken to ensure the safety for communities A, B and D in the likelihood that they could disagree. All that happened was community C was locked up.
In the assumption that C is innocent because A accused them, all other communities already judge C and enmity then builds up towards them even though community C is accused. On top of that, still all communities are not protected from further attacks.
In the end, everyone is left unprotected: no suggestions or solving of the problem at hand, nor prevention of communities from attacking each other further, no hand shakes made to resolve the community problems in terms of tension, no security has been appointed in any of the communities at large... and all communities continue to live with enmity towards each other then there's a divide.
In shot, the moral of the story is solve the problems at large because there's always a deeper/root problem. Fixing the surface problem doesn't solve anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment