There is something wrong with this question, the subject, are you asking whether it is good to stick to Suiyang, or is it good to eat people?

It's ambiguous to ask a question, and I'm also convinced. The key is that the answers are not reviewed well, and the answers are also messy, and they can't see clearly what they are saying?

Why are many people's answers stepped on? Because you have a problem with logic, your answer has been emphasizing that because you have to defend to the death, you have to eat people, and if you don't defend to the death, you will lose the country and the world, and it is moral and righteous to defend at that time, so cannibalism also has moral reconciliation and harmony, so it is good to defend and eat people.

However, from the logical deduction, stubborn adherence does not necessarily require cannibalism, and morality will only seek one's own self, not impose on others. It is certainly okay for you to stick to your morality, but why should you eat others to safeguard your morality? If you don't eat others, you can also safeguard your morality, but you just take other people's lives as the weight of your own morality, and the weight is too heavy for future generations to weigh it.

You see, your logic is very problematic, so the opponents are the head of the way, and they are dancing with their teeth and claws. But I still have to say that those who oppose have problems with their heads, don't worry, listen to me slowly.

Let's talk about whether it's good to stick to Suiyang. I think it's good for three reasons: First, if we don't defend it to the death, there will be no barrier in the Jianghuai and Central Plains, and the rebels can storm Hexi and Hetao for thousands of miles, and a corner of Yizhou can protect the prosperous Tang Dynasty? Someone said that maybe the rebels' temperament had changed drastically, and not only did they not kill them, but they also treated them well. I have to say, you are really naïve; third, the rebels are several times the defenders, and abandoning the city is tantamount to suicide, there is neither a fortification to defend it, nor a capital to seek field warfare, there is neither strategic supply nor logistical support, and it is naturally the best choice to defend it. So, it's good to stick to it.

Besides, it's good to eat people. Of course cannibalism is not good, of course the little people want to live, why should I be eaten by you, you are a soldier and have the morality to guard your morality, your Taoism, I don't have it, why sacrifice me to fulfill you? Yes, yes, yes, what you said is right, you can live without sacrifice, you can live, but you are naïve, you are stupid, you don't understand the rules of survival in troubled times.

The generational change of civilization has taught us a truth: there is only one rule of survival in troubled times, killing.

During the war years, there were only two kinds of personal fate, killing and being killed; if you can kill someone, you will live, and your hands are dirty, so you are not qualified to say that others are bastards; if you are killed, you may not be just, because you may be ready to kill yourself, but your ability to kill people is not as good as that of the other party, so it is not unjust to be killed. Even if you really don't want to kill people and are killed, that can't be said that you are moral, after all, it is naïve to talk about morality with the person who kills people. You see, no one is qualified to say that you are noble, and the morality of making a judgment only depends on whether you have the ability to kill.

If you kill someone, you are always ready to be killed, after all, there are always people who are stronger than you in killing skills. So death is only a matter of time, how to die is a moral question, and even how to be killed is a matter of morality.

Our descendants probably will not be able to understand why there are dead men in history who have sacrificed their families and careers to fulfill their mission for one thing, one person, or one belief, even at the cost of their own lives. Because these murderers in troubled times have understood the laws of survival in troubled times, they will always die, and they must die as they deserve.

So Mencius said: Life is also what I want, righteousness is also what I want, and you can't have both, and those who sacrifice their lives to take righteousness are also. Therefore, death in troubled times is inescapable, and how to die is valuable. As a soldier, you should fight bravely to kill the enemy and die on the battlefield, and as a common man, you should die without hatred.

Collect troops and burn armor, destroy their country, destroy their shrines, and adulterous wives and daughters, Nell?

Definitely. Sima Fayun: It is okay to kill people to calm people, it is okay to attack their country and love their people, and it is okay to stop the war with war.

If killing is the only law in troubled times, cannibalism doesn't seem to be a big deal. After all, cannibalism is at least one way to kill people, and death is liberation, while other means of killing people make people survive and not die. To be alive is to keep killing and being eaten, but you can save some people.

I never understood that people living in hell face all this, but I know that in the face of despair, the human instinct is not fear, but calm.

Therefore, in a war situation, whether to eat or not to eat people is not a moral judgment, but a value judgment. Cannibalism is more valuable and beneficial, then it is necessary to eat, to feed those who need it most, and then to live, and then to kill, because only by killing people can we earn the right to live for ourselves and even our own people; After all, the evaluation of human nature cannot be taken from the beast.

So the correct logical deduction of the problem should be this: if you want to live, you must kill someone, you must kill, so someone must die, someone must die, so who will die first, how to die, when will you die, how to make their deaths worthwhile, how to evaluate the deaths of these people?

So Zhang Xun is great. He has done his best to seek supplies, and only at the last critical moment will he eat people; the order of cannibalism is to send his own concubine first, rather than eating others first; after eating people, he neither surrendered nor fled, but fought hard to die on the battlefield; after eating people, he defended the city, and the Tang Dynasty was revived, and his achievements can be recorded in the annals of history.

Therefore, those who eat people die bravely and bravely, and those who are eaten die as they deserve. Those who are eaten have no ability to eat people, and there is no way to live if they are not eaten, so even if they are reluctant, they will die without hatred. Those who eat people are grateful for being eaten, and those who are eaten resentfully eat people, but after all, those who eat people are also eaten, but sooner or later.

If you die now, you will die, and if you die, you will die, and if you die, will you die?

I said: Yes.

Above.