If I were to compose a heart in words then maybe the veracity of it would seem unlikely to all; concerning that the heart does not easily get labels as our orientation and our actions.
We can see this easily, even many a times when one does wrong the wrong does not illustrate the heart in its entire so the heart [and brain also many a times] is unfit to be easily labelled. The heart can be labelled but to each is mostly the owning. If one is a thief by nature as we say we might be able to state that the heart of that individual is that of a thief and will always be as so. But many a times the concept of “thief by nature” to be corresponding with “thief by heart” may not be really an easy equation to write. Even a horrid thief or a kleptomaniac cannot be called “thief by heart” easily. We can only assume that the thieving aspect is an aspect and not the heart in its entirety.
Basically, that is why we usually give people second chances.
So, the context is usually the ruling principle of this subject. When one kills one can be called a murderer but one can not be a murderer a heart so simply unless the individual is as cold and nefarious as the crimes committed. That is why there are differences between people who had killed a person in accident and serial killers who dote on torturing and murdering — the truest thieves one can find.
So, which is the strongest heart?
I guess that is quite a contextual question and one that has labyrinthine answers —
— we can observe and analyze and find a veritable answer in our longings to define warmth and stability; variance and virtue…