blueberryman wrote:
I have learned that if someone does something they are likely to do it again in the future. The best predictor of future behaviour is usually past behaviour. I have tried "moving on" and forgiving the other person however they still continue their behavioural patterns. At best they may stop doing it to me but still do it to other people. Its somewhat misanthropic. The only exception is if they did something to me as a kid, then I can move past that given people mature as they get older. If they do something to me as an adult then theres no point in interacting with that individual.
I think that's mostly reasonable. I suppose "forgiveness" means ceasing to bear a "grudge," ceasing to plan retaliation. I see retaliation as an attempt to use Pavlovian conditioning to discourage the offender from repeating their offense - in other words, it's retribution performed by the individual rather than the State. The law, when it's working well, ends the punishment when the victim's sense of honour is satisfied and the offender has learned that their bad behaviour rebounds on them. There are advantages and disadvantages to individuals saving the State the trouble and expense by fixing problems locally.
I think "grudges" are natural, and somewhat desirable as long as they don't lead to escalation. Turning the other cheek and trying to wipe one's mind clean of retaliatory urges is mostly unhealthy. A lot of the time I think the anger just gets repressed and surfaces as passive aggression or retaliation against the wrong target.
Having said that, I have some liking for the "check rather than hurt" thing, because it's less likely to escalate a conflict. But it's more of a philosophy for empowered people who have the luxury of such a choice. And very often we don't know exactly how strong or weak our position is in a given situation, until we've put it to the test, so mistakes can happen.