It seems like the apology the author deems as the "one acceptable response" is the apology for causing harm. Intention and impact are two different things with lots of correlation and causation between them. But if someone can't--for the sake of your argument--apologize for unintentionally hurting or harming SOMEONE FOR WHOM THEY CLAIM TO CARE ... then that's a huge problem within that dynamic, and maybe within that person. If they have a history of this behavior in their various relationships, and cannot even bend to apologize for just the impact of their intentions, if not the intention, itself ... they have and are a problem. Smart money says ... don't let them (whoever "they" are) be YOUR (whoever "you" are) problem.

If an "I'm sorry I hurt you. I'm didn't mean to," doesn't happen at some point in the discussion that follows a harmful action or harmful speech, that is a VERY red flag. And in ANY case of harms caused, the person causing the harm CANNOT dictate the intensity, frequency, or validity of the impact on the person harmed nor the healing-time to follow. The harm-er can only agree to stick with whatever terms are reached and whatever work is needed to address the situation ... or they can find another "option." We teach people how to treat us and if they're not willing to take the lesson to heart, why keep giving them chances to cause harm then plead ignorance and misfired intentions? Loving someone isn't the same as letting them continue to hurt and even destroy one.

Intention-over-impact doesn't work with drunk drivers who injure and kill folks--un-intentionally, in the vast number of instances. This same rubric of impact OVER intention should hold true when the hurt is emotional. Intention matters ... but impact matters more, at the end of the day. All we HAVE are our good intentions but all we ARE is our every impact on the world.