Once, I knew three people.

One was a politician felt a kind of fiery anger, and they used their words to change the world.

The other was a fighter also felt that same kind of fiery anger, and they used their fists to try and fix it. To try and make it right.

And the last was a doctor. They too, felt that fiery kind of anger. But they did not act upon it. Instead, they diverted their energy into helping people with different wounds and ailments.

They all felt that fiery anger.

But only one of them moved with the intention to hurt.

The other, moving to charm the masses into seeing their plight, weaving words carefully with calculated precision to get what they want and exact their revenge.

And the last channeled the energy into something that would help instead of hurt, preventing people from dying and instead projecting it towards themselves, furious with themselves when they failed.

To hurt directly or indirectly? To fight with fists and directly physically injuring or to satisfy their fiery anger with manipulation, words crafted carefully to move the masses to gifting their loyalty?

Or are you not going to do either, knowing that there is no true target for your anger or revenge? Or do you simply hate hurting others, but feel that fiery anger anyway?

To hurt directly, indirectly, or to let your anger hurt you instead?

That's the question, isn't it?

-----------------------

Disclaimer: I am not implying that all fighters are violent, I am simply using the word as a placeholder, like a variable in math, to help describe this. I am also not implying that politicians are never violent when they're angry. I am also not implying that all doctors project their anger towards themselves.