Quote:
Originally Posted by niranjan  Here you go ...
There are indeed logical reasons not to kill oneself.
For one , you are committing murder on yourself ( leaving the physical illness part out of this which is involuntary ). And a murder is a murder whether it is yourself or others.
Secondly , you are bringing to waste all the tremondous power and divinity that is within you from being manifested, which could go a long way in promoting truth, justice , culture ,goodness and beauty in this world. It can also bring happiness , peace and bliss to you in the long run.
Thirdly, you are bringing great pain and suffering to your friends and family. That is sheer selfishness .
Fourthly, you are promoting yourself as a negative role model to society, and others who know you, in their weaker moments, might feel tempted to follow your example and choose the easier path of killing themselves instead of battling it out and emerging triumphant along with being positive role models for society. |
Sorry, this still fails. If he chooses to kill himself, that is his choice. If he doesn't care about those around him, then yes, suicide would not be illogical because it would not conflict with his intent. If he does not want to hurt those around him, then suicide would violate his intent to not hurt them, then it would be illogical. But when someone kills himself, self pity outweighs his intent to help those around him. He does not care about those around him.
So yeah, where is the evidence that suicide is illogical?
Quote:
Originally Posted by niranjan Refute what I have said, then point out that this is an opinion and not a fact. |
It has already been refuted. You assume that a fish deserves to be killed for humans, someone else can take the opposite stance. Therefore your view is an opinion, fact. So yeah, again, this boils down to opinion, not fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niranjan And how did you get to the truth yourself , in order to refute the 'fact ' or my 'opinion' that humans are important. |
I do not refute the opinion that humans are important any more than I refute the opinion that fish are important. None of them are facts, they are subjective opinions. The truth I arrive at is that these things are subjective opinions, I do not take any side. So yeah, again, this boils down to opinion, not fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niranjan Well, I have given my grounds on why people are important , both on eastern philosophy and western. You have not refuted that reasoning. |
And those are opinions, not facts. I cannot refute the opinion that humans are important anymore than I can refute the opinion that fish are important. It is a subjective opinion, and it cannot be refuted by the facts, because it is an opinion. But when you disguise your opinion as a fact, you are violating a fundamental law of logic. If you say that what you believe is an opinion, I can accept it, but when you call it a fact, you are lying. Just like when someone looks at a car, some will think it is beautiful, some will think it is ugly. There is no fact that it is beautiful, it is an opinion. So yeah, again, this boils down to opinion, not fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niranjan Again refute what I have said, pal. Then say that it boils down to opinion, and not fact. |
And that is your opinion that humans are more important than fish. It is an opinion, not a fact. Just like when someone looks at a car, some will think it is beautiful, some will think it is ugly. There is no fact that it is beautiful, it is an opinion. So yeah, again, this boils down to opinion, not fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niranjan And what indeed is my own agenda!!!!!!!!!
Refute what I have said, then point out that this is an opinion and not a fact. |
You value your own life over the life of a fish, therefore it is an opinion. So yeah, again, this boils down to opinion, not fact. So yeah, again, this boils down to opinion, not fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niranjan Refute what I have said, then point out that this is an opinion and not a fact. |
It has already been refuted, for reasons stated above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niranjan And why the need to eleminate people, why just focus on family planning and population control, so as to reduce population, instead of killing people.
You can see by discrimination or reasoning, that this brings the greater good and lesser evil. |
And some people will reduce the population through mass extermination. It is his opinion, maybe he values ants over humans who knows? Its an opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niranjan Indeed everything in the world ecosystem is interdependent, and it has to be seen that the harmony is preserved and not disrupted, as it will have a negative effect on the rest as well. |
And humans are disrupting that harmony. Therefore, people say, “Lets wipe out the human race.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by niranjan I would be against his actions, as I believe that he is bringing greater evil not only to the world, but also his own people. |
That is your opinion. Just like you value a human life over 100 ants, Hitler valued a Nazi’s life over 1000 Jews. And this is Hitler’s opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niranjan Perhaps , if we take the whole world or world ecosystem as ones boundary end, and conduct actions on knowledge brought forth by discrimination, that would bring the greater good and the least evil. |
No, that has already been refuted above. You have your own opinion when it comes to the value of creatures. Do you judge the value of a creature on its size, brain size, weight, strength, its ability to run or its beauty?
Do beavers deserve more rights than mongooses?
Do 100 ants equal 6.3 cockroaches?
The greater good to who?
Your concepts are really, really immature and I think you’re just running away from the fact that you know you are wrong. It does not make much logic to refute what you are saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niranjan And reasoning or discrimination is indeed the right course of thinking, on which brings the greater good ,and putting that knowledge into action. |
This has already been refuted above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niranjan There is every probability that if Stauffenberg had succeeded in his attempt, the lives of many innocent thousands could have been spared, including that of germans, and it would have spared germany from the deaths and destruction that preceded its ultimate capitulation. |
Yes, but Hitler wasn’t concerned with those people, it was his opinion. Again, this has already been refuted above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niranjan He arrived at the truth of the matter, analysing the military situation, which was pretty bleak for germany, and found that it is only going to result in the deaths of many innocents and much greater destruction, before the final inevitable defeat, as Hitler was adamant in fighting on, without a true assessment of the military situation. |
Yes, but Hitler wasn’t concerned with those people, it was his opinion. Again, this has already been refuted above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niranjan In order to avoid all the unnecessary bloodshed and suffering, he decided to eleminate Hitler, as he felt that it would bring greater good to the whole ( in his case his country ) and prevent the deaths of many innocent german soldiers and civilians. |
Yes, but Hitler wasn’t concerned with those people, it was his opinion. Again, this has already been refuted above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niranjan And there was every chance that if he had succeeded, Germany, stripped of its leader, would have capitulated immediately, as it was already demoralised by a pretty much deteriorating military position. It was only Hitler who was adamant in fighting to the very end. |
Yes, but Hitler wasn’t concerned with those people, it was his opinion. Again, this has already been refuted above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niranjan And this capitulation would have saved the lives of many innocent soldiers and civilians. Of course, it does not have to strictly have to happen this way but chances or the odds favour this reasoning very much. |
Yes, but Hitler wasn’t concerned with those people, it was his opinion. Again, this has already been refuted above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niranjan I would say that Stauffenberg's reasoning is much closer to the fact, than to an opinion. |
To fulfill his own intent, yes. But Hitler’s intent was different. But Hitler wasn’t concerned with those people, it was his opinion. Again, this has already been refuted above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niranjan Dude, I have indeed emphasised this as OUR PERCEPTION, and did not establish it as a fact. It has indeed not been proved wrong as well by anyone. |
Thank you, that clearly shows my victory.
Oh and before I completely annihilate you, where is the evidence that suicide is illogical?