I sympathise with the sentiments. Truth actually is that dilemma isn’t needed, except that to completely know this is to mean transcendence: dilemma arises out of lack of proper foundation, but to have proper foundation is to have 100% co-existence (which in turn means no nations, no categorization, no wealth and no individual identity).
So, total poverty and a blob existence where everyone looks the same? Fantastic.
The truth is not out there, but is an illusion within that is contingent upon a specific question (we often assign the wrong truth to the wrong question).
It also means erasing the term poverty (categorization) - and no, it doesn’t mean all looking the same.
It depends on the severity of the sprain, there’s three categories and the worst includes rupturing of ligaments and the like. I had my foot dislocated when playing football, it took like 18 months to fully recover, but only like 8 weeks before I could walk normally.
Most ankle sprains are roughly 4-8 weeks to heal and another few weeks to rehabilitate it back to where you were previously.
No, what’s up?
I sprained my ankle once. It only took around, all-told, five or six days for it to heal.
Maybe you broke your ankle, gib. That supposedly takes up to six weeks to heal under normal conditions and considering who the individual is.
You might want to see an orthopedist NOW.
GO right now, gib. 
There is the story of a group of fox hunters who encountered a man walking down their path. The men asked the man if he had seen the fox, and, if so, in what direction was the fox going? The man had seen the fox, but told the hunters the fox was going in a different direction from the one it was actually going in.
A life saved by a lie!!!
Warlock wrote:
I disagree.
Passion, yes but love, no.
Henry Miller “was an authentic pig who saw women as nothing but sex objects, not a womanizer, but a brutaliser”, no doubt about that.
He instructed (Anais Nin, his lover) in the craft of writing and her role in turn was a source of inspiration for him and his wife (June) was the muse for both of them. They wrote about her for many years, even though she had left Henry and moved on. I like his sexually frank and rebellious style of writing.
“If there were a man who dared to say all that he thought of this world there would not be left him a square foot of ground to stand on [. . .]If now and then we encounter pages that explode, pages that wound and sear, that wring groans and tears and curses, know that they come from a man with his back up, a man whose only defenses left are his words and his words are always stronger than the lying, crushing weight of the world, stronger than all the racks and wheels which the cowardly invent to crush out the miracle of personality. If any man ever dared to translate all that is in his heart, to put down what is really his experience, what is truly his truth, I think then the world would go to smash, that it would be blown to smithereens and no god, no accident, no will could ever again assemble the pieces, the atoms the indestructible elements that have gone to make up the world.” HM
But the hunters aren’t too happy. 
,and neither will be the farmer around the bend whose children will go hungry for a while.
But that hungry fox certainly feasted on the chicken. Yummy!
Ah, if we could only live and let live.
Ah, gib, aren’t there so many grey areas within that line? I’ve been known to utter those words.
Did you get your self to the orthopedist?
Nah, I think I’m going to hobble for the rest of my life.
The fox kills for food; the hunters kill for sport.
Food can be one’s livelihood, Ierrellus. The fox kills for food but who’s food?
The point I was trying to make is that we never know the consequences of even our so-called good actions.
As the buddhist monk says in the story - “So what”!
We all kill in order to survive. There has to be some moral distinction between killing in order to survive and killing to get a trophy hide1 What story? What Buddhist monk? So what is a lazy or immature way to approach the need to make clear moral distinctions. When my daughter was being a brat and I reprimanded her, her response was “So what!”
I’ll try to find the story for you, Ierrellus.
The gist of it is that everything which at first appears to be good, to have turned out well, and thus says the buddhist “SO WHAT”, can then evolve into some negative, and thus says the buddhist “SO WHAT”, which negative result can then lead to something positive, and thus says the buddhist “SO WHAT” and ad continuum.
lol
I felt it was a really profound lesson when I first read it ~~ much food for thought ~~albeit we can’t help but judge results/conclusions at first glance.
But we just never know how each link on the chain, for lack of a better expression, can be effected.
SO, SO WHAT!!!
A bit of stoicism, nihilism and perhaps amor fati
If we have to draw any moral lines here, I’d say Ierrellus is on the right track. Killing for food in order to survive is a necessity; killing for sport is not. There’s also one’s awareness of moral imperatives to consider. The fox doesn’t even know about “right” and “wrong”–he runs on instinct.
Unfortunately, maybe even the hunters “run on instinct.” Or ignorance.
“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”