>>35138708I get that you think I’m out to get you by this point but I’m not. I’m just observing contrasting differences between what you said and what you meant. The case I’m making is sound in reason if you consider it a debate and not an attack.
I understood your point perfectly fine. Again. You contradicted yourself in the same breath. You said “[respect and support personal decisions...unless you think you know better than a reckless person and decide it’s your responsibility to intervene]”
Look man, those two are oil and water. They cannot mix by default. Giving advice isn’t what you implied because the word objective is absolute, that is to say, it’s impossible for the subject/person to adhere to as fact.
In the buddist line of thought, who’s to say what is good or bad? A bad decision can bring a happy accident, more than likely resulting in most of us being born as “unplanned”. Your plan is yours, it cannot and should not affect others. Otherwise that’s oppressive and takes liberties in the very act of taking liberty.
