If you were a slave driver in the south of the US some 200 years ago and I told you that slavery was understandable but not acceptable, you probably would have scoffed in my face and said that what I was saying was ridicules and that of course slavery was acceptable as the law says so.
Move 200 years forward and if I now told you that anger was understandable but not acceptable I also think that you would scoff and say that what I was saying was ridicules that of course anger is acceptable as we all do it and that there is no law against it.
But does this argument hold water? Do we need a law to deem what is or is not acceptable?
If I told you today that slavery was not acceptable you would agree regardless what law did or did not exist.
What if we simply agreed that our own anger was understandable but not acceptable and we would need to be accountable for our outbursts by apologising for them regardless of the cause or reason. Then, in a way we are forming a “law” that outlaws such behaviour and after a bit of practice, I say that we would wonder how we ever thought such behaviour could be acceptable in the past.
Try it and see.