There are various upbringings in this world that are acceptable. Some say you must follow your heart and desires when posed with a decision. Others say the side of righteousness is the one you must pick. Some also say that neutrality is the way to go.

I like to think that I was brought up with the teachings of neutrality yet my actions speak otherwise. In most conflicts between good people, it is often the side of righteousness, law and other morals against the desires of a person or group. This in itself is a debate which will never be solved as there is never an adequately fair question that can be posed in the debate wants vs right.

That is perhaps why neutrality is a blessing. Neutrality is neither the enemy nor the ally of anyone. It could be a bystander or a mediator.

Yet what happens, if a person of neutrality is not asked to pick a side, rather, forced to pick a side - either through direct rejection from one side or from forced representation by another? What would happen to a person caught in the pulls of decision making?

Confusion. Panic. Disorientation. When a person is seen as a member of the opposition, often they are treated as such, no questions asked. Often a few lies built on lies, or even lies built on truths could drive one side into hating, or seeing the "neutral" person as the enemy. And how does one prove they are neutral, and not the enemy? Does one swap sides then quit? Or do they try to convince someone that they are neutral knowing full well that everyone is paranoid of their enemies, seeing all the fictional signs of lying.

So maybe, neutrality is not as peaceful as most believe.