Better? Worse? They're subject to perception, variable, and therefore potentially anything. Do you decide what's "better" or "worse"? Your preferences which are imposed upon you by your mind don't change the world; merely how you perceive it. When you get down to fundamentals, the reason you don't want people to die is because you instinctively don't want them to die.

In any case, even from the humanistically oriented perception which I despise, your argument works both ways. People who you think would have made the world "worse" as you phrase it, are more likely to die in an inverse scenario to the one you wish to create, and would, by your logic, make the world "better" by their absence.


By "ignorant people", that encompasses all humanity, as I have stated. Your so called rights ae merely the absence of limitation. You have the ability to do anything. The legal system and the bullshit 'social equilibrium' ethical ideologies which it advocates merely restrict you. What you think are your "rights" are the concessions which shape the way they wish you to live. In any case, rights are a concept, and don't exist independantly of humans. Perceiving that you lack a right is an illusion.


Again, you do not have rights. "Rights" aren't a reason.


"Mistakes" are merely perceived breaches of instinct. Again, you have no point. Your so-called morality is the result of eventuality. You selfishly wish to survive and pine for stability. And people think that humans aren't animalistic.... fucking amazing.


Maybe I should make this perfectly lucid: I want everyone to die. Can you understand now?


Because that's so "politically correct".


i.e. ALL people. And the simple reason is, their existence is futile. And I instinctively hate them, so....


So you claim not to know my motives, and yet you think that the end result is redolent of ignorance. Riiiiight. Pathetic.