|
Of course, of course. I got that. I just wanted to use it as a base for my answer. I thought it would be easier to illustrate the concept of apology. There is more to my post than the little line you quoted.
That is why I addressed that part of your "example" to answer your question. In other words, if one cannot understand why they would need to apologize what they do not perceive to be offensive to someone, then the deeper problem lays there. Because if the person fails to understand why his actions were hurtful, then what good is the apology if they are not truly sorry? That to me is the essence of apology.
I understand what you are saying, but my post still stands: If it is a literal example, then my post still applies. If it is theoretical, then I would contend it still applies - Change "you" for "one", that is, subsititute the subjects otherwise, take the allegorical "you" as a narrative device in positing a point, not the literal "you".
Otherwise, maybe you shouldn't have included that example or it's a poor example. Why include the example if you don't want it to be part of the discussion? Hope that clears things up a bit.
Funny, it reminds me of the Simpson's epsiode where Bart doesn't want to apologize to Lisa at first because he isn't sorry, it's her problem not his. After Lisa and Bart discuss it, she explains why his actions were hurtful, Bart does become remorseful and delivers a rather heartfelt apology to her. Good epsiode.
|