Are you for real? Nobody here has claimed that even the lowliest bacteria has not life. Your yourself kill billions of live organisms in your every moment simply by dint of being alive.
Btw, do you support violence or you want to minimize it?
Are you for real? Nobody here has claimed that even the lowliest bacteria has not life. Your yourself kill billions of live organisms in your every moment simply by dint of being alive.
No, nature has not "probably" given anything, especially cognition to humans in order that they will be obliged to protect lower life forms. Please stop trying to insist that we all follow your religion.They may not be having capability of cognition but humans have. Probably, nature has given capability of cognition to humans to protect lower lives. Live being or not, it can depend on how you take it. Few may even not consider lower plants and animals as live being, it does not mean that they are not. Anyone has property to get or give affects on stimulation, why can't be alike live?
No. As we already discussed, there are many species that exists only because humans bred them. You are completely ignorant of biology.We have not made them. Nature has made them. We simply used our seniority to first nurse then for self interests and then kill them. It simply is monopoly. If we support monopoly, we should not consider any monopolistic person as odd. Nature has kept us & others existed for long without us. We are not God of them.
No, I don't want to live by the edicts of your ascetic religion. That doesn't mean I support "violence." Try to think in terms that are more nuanced than your religion versus everything else.Btw, do you support violence or you want to minimize it?
No, nature has not "probably" given anything, especially cognition to humans in order that they will be obliged to protect lower life forms. Please stop trying to insist that we all follow your religion.
No, I don't want to live by the edicts of your ascetic religion. That doesn't mean I support "violence." Try to think in terms that are more nuanced than your religion versus everything else.
Jainism is not nature.Whether nature has made us senior to monopolize and do violence on lower beings?
No, your religion's sense of obligation is based on a model of nature that is not factually correct.Simply, practice minimum and intelligent violence for basic need--may be the right attitude of seniors with their juniors. For it, we should be feel obliged to them.
Do we really follow nature's rules?
Jainism is not nature.
Read the preceding thread.Pls define, what is not part of nature and how?
No, your religion's sense of obligation is based on a model of nature that is not factually correct.
Read the preceding thread.
I repeat: your religion imposes obligation based on a model of nature that is factually false.Don't people feel obliged and do express it, when they get some organ for transplant from someone? Here whole body is involved and that too for temporary need or greed.
You are not an authority on what is truthful or logical. The debate over Jainism and nature is in the preceding thread. We're not going to have it all over again just because you want another try.Nothing truthful or logical is there.
I repeat: your religion imposes obligation based on a model of nature that is factually false.
You are not an authority on what is truthful or logical. The debate over Jainism and nature is in the preceding thread. We're not going to have it all over again just because you want another try.
No, that's not how nature works. What you're trying to call "natural duty" is really just Jainism.No, it is just based on 'fulfilling your natural duties'. Moreover, whatever we take, if more than what we give, need to be addressed by expressing obligation.
Gibberish. Please rewrite this post in coherent language.Pls debate, whatever interest you without caring other's interests. I can not force, never forced to do that. It is violence.