10-27-2010, 11:41 AM
i dont 'insist' on everything is either ok, or not ok. there is a viewpoint that says 'everything is ok because everything is gonna be ok in the end'. you can see it in this page and preceding pages of this thread.
but, upon querying, it turns out that there are apparently things that are not 'ok' to do, for some reason. yet, that perspective holders still insist on everything being 'ok'.
now, at this point, there is either a case, or another case.
if one says 'everything is ok' but objects to a group of people destroying an entire planet, or doing something else, it means that, everything was not 'ok', at that given point.
and, if there are things that shouldnt be done, then it means that 'everything is not ok'.
this is not something that has any kind of middle road. there are either 'should not's, or there are not. its not about the degree of the 'should not'. a 'should not' may be not destroying a planet, or it may be not eating too much.
its not about the weight/importance of what should not be done. its about whether there are things that shouldnt be done or not.
but, upon querying, it turns out that there are apparently things that are not 'ok' to do, for some reason. yet, that perspective holders still insist on everything being 'ok'.
now, at this point, there is either a case, or another case.
if one says 'everything is ok' but objects to a group of people destroying an entire planet, or doing something else, it means that, everything was not 'ok', at that given point.
and, if there are things that shouldnt be done, then it means that 'everything is not ok'.
this is not something that has any kind of middle road. there are either 'should not's, or there are not. its not about the degree of the 'should not'. a 'should not' may be not destroying a planet, or it may be not eating too much.
its not about the weight/importance of what should not be done. its about whether there are things that shouldnt be done or not.